http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142934532 ... -from-iran

Distraction? "If we beat this drum louder than our domestic occupiers will you ignore them?"

Nukes in Pakistan, ramping up in Iran, da-bomb, da-boom go the drums.

Much death and suffering, Trillions spent, Trillions owed.

We are leaving the area soon, right?

Iraq - troops out by 12/31/11.

Afganistan - ?

China?

Carter?

Carter?


Have we seen this movie before?

Spoiler alert:

Fast forward...

raygun to the rescue.

Played by newt in todays version of, "God Sent Me To Save America".

Ugh.

Ugh.

Is that half of ugh-huh?

I'm just asking if anyone else see what I'm seeing?

I will post more examples...

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-military-sho ... 04389.html

To explain...
Cater was poo-pooed for...
wanting to move away from foreign oil, and not getting the hostages out of Iran. (diversion to the real problem? arab oil embargo? big oil money?)

In rides the movie hero to the rescue. The public is happy, and the cons ride the jellybean tide.

So the drum pounding today, is it calling out to the falling sky or is the concern real?
I see ganewt playing ray-gun in todays update.
Only one problem, the USA will be playing the part of russia in this version.

Again, how did it turn out for russia in the original version?

And lastly, why don't we solve problems at home (Mexico) and let the locals (India?) help out more?

Oil Rises To Near $102 As Iran Tensions Rise

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =143125584

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=247394

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -city.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -down.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danho ... coalition/

Is it just me, or is there something happing here?

Ugh.

The war drums will always call. The Chicken Hawks will call for us to surrender our liberties for the security of all.

I shall express an opinion that may strike some as hostile and uncivilized; Yet there is nothing as uncivilized as war.

My Opinion:

Even as insane as this sounds; Occasionally good can come of war even if indirectly, and only after the horrors of war have been experinced for too long by too many. The crime of war is that the children of the Leadership and the Leadership driving us to war rarely experience it; Especially in its cold, ugly, brutishness; Its dehumanizing aspects and costs.

For our nation to distance itself from war we must raise the costs of war on those who would lead us. Make the concept of war a dear cost directly charged to the members of the Representative and Executive Branches of Government by requiring the children of our leaders to bear the same burdens as those who swear to protect and defend the Constitution. For only when the Leadership realize how much they have to loose will they not be reckless with the lives of others.

If the costs of war are not made dear to those who would have us go to war; we will have more of war(s) than we can afford.

Ugh.

An interesting concept that will never happen in America.

Also it seems not to affect they way the UK looks at war even though the Princes' serve.

At any rate the drum beats on.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/12/143469532 ... n-pakistan

December 12, 2011

Pakistan is a country where rumors are always flowing. So when President Asif Ali Zardari was rushed to a hospital in the United Arab Emirates on Dec. 6, it set off all sorts of speculation.

His aides are doing their best to quell talk that he might step down. They say Zardari has been undergoing treatment and tests for a pre-existing heart ailment, and is recovering well in Dubai.

But that hasn't stopped politicians from considering what Pakistan's political landscape might look like without him.

Zardari won the presidency three years ago with an outpouring of public sympathy following the assassination of his wife, the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

He's had a tumultuous term in office that has included widespread violence in Pakistan, the spillover effects of the war in Afghanistan and increasing friction with the United States. And like all Pakistani civilian leaders, he often appears to have less authority than Pakistan's military, the country's most powerful institution.

'Memogate' Scandal

His latest problem is a scandal known as "memogate." It refers to a letter that Pakistan's ambassador in Washington allegedly passed to Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The letter was sent in May, shortly after U.S. commandos killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The U.S. carried out the raid without giving the Pakistanis advance notice, and angered many in Pakistan.

The memo asked for U.S. help in preventing a military takeover in Pakistan, and promised that in return, Pakistan would align its policies with those of the U.S., especially when it came to Afghanistan.

Akram Sheikh, a senior advocate before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, believes that Zardari himself approved the memo. Sheikh says that if that's true, then the president should be charged with something worse than treason for "waging war against Pakistan and conspiring against Pakistan's solidarity [and] sovereignty."

"This constitutes a violation on the part of Mr. Asif Ali Zardari of the oath of his office," says Sheikh.

Zardari was scheduled to appear before a joint session of parliament to testify about the memo affair. His sudden departure for Dubai fueled speculation he was trying to avoid what was sure to be a difficult public appearance.

Zardari's Son: Treatment Going Well

Mushahid Hussain Syed, is the secretary general of the Pakistan Muslim League's so-called Q faction, and his party belongs to Zardari's ruling coalition. Syed says he spoke directly with the president's son, Bilawal, about Zardari's physical condition.

"It's not life-threatening," Syed says. "[Bilawal] said that the treatment is proceeding well, and that he expects that his father will be back soon within a matter of days after the completion of the treatment."

Zardari supporters insist that the president is coming back, and say he has nothing to fear from a parliamentary inquiry.

Opposition parties sense that the episode will leave Zardari weakened politically.

Ahsan Iqbal is the deputy secretary general of the Pakistan Muslim League's N faction, named for its leader, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Zardari's departure could weaken his Peoples Party of Pakistan, the PPP, and provide an opening for its rivals, says Iqbal.

"It will be a new beginning for the Peoples' Party because the past three-and-a-half years have been dominated by his presidency and by his leadership of the party, which has come under a lot of criticism," Iqbal says.

Regardless of Zardari's political fate, his coalition ally, Mushahid Husain Syed, says he thinks Pakistan's civilian political culture has gotten stronger and will survive.

"Please don't forget that Mr. Zardari was an accidental president," he said. "He became president after the assassination of his wife, Ms. Benazir Bhutto. So in Pakistan, the political system has a certain resilience and a certain continuity, which I think would remain unaffected."

Many observers think Pakistan's political system will need all the resilience it can muster should Zardari resign. Pakistan's constitution says elections for a new president would have to be held within 30 days.

Oops, I almost forgot...Ugh.

Thanks.

We have bunker busters half off this week only and we have an open express isle. You want paper or plastic?...

U.S., Israel Stand Together On Iran Issue, Obama And Netanyahu Say

11:35 am
March 5, 2012
by Mark Memmott

With Iran and its nuclear program looming over the discussions, President Obama said this morning that "the United States will always have Israel's back." The president's comment came with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is at the White House for talks today, by his side.

For his part, Netanyahu told reporters that the U.S. and Israel stand together on policy toward Iran, The Associated Press reports.

The two leaders just held something of a photo op. Other reports on what they had to say:

— "At start of mtg w/ Netanyahu, Pres Obama reaffirms 'unbreakable' 'rock solid' commitment to Israel. Says US will always have Israel's back. ... On stopping Iran's nuclear pgm., Pres Obama says US policy is prevention not containment. Says all US options on the table: 'I mean it.' ... Pres Obama says there is still a window for a diplomatic solution with Iran & that both US and Israel prefer to resolve it diplomatically." (Tweets from CBS News' Mark Knoller.)

— After referring to the "terrible bloodshed" in Syria and the upheaval elsewhere in the Arab world, Obama said that 'In the midst of this we have an island of democracy and one of our greatest allies in Israel. ... The bond between our two countries is unbreakable." (From the "pool" audio.)

— "Both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically," Obama added, referring to the Iran issue. "We understand the costs of any military action." (From the "pool" audio.)

— Netanyahu said that "Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests and that we face common enemies. Iran's leaders know that too. For them you're the Great Satan, we're the Little Satan. For them, we are you and you are us. And you know something, Mr. President? At least on this last point I think they're right. We are you and you are us. We're together. ... Israel and America stand together."

While the two leaders spoke of unity and common interests, the talks between Obama and Netanyahu are complicated because of Iran and the issue of its nuclear ambitions. As The New York Times has reported:


"Mr. Netanyahu ... is hoping to prompt more clarity from Mr. Obama on how he sees increasingly tough sanctions and diplomacy with Iran playing out in the coming months.

"He also wants to press Mr. Obama on where his red line lies: how and when the United States will decide whether sanctions are succeeding or failing, and how committed he is to the use of force, officials and analysts following the discussions on both sides said in recent days.

"For Mr. Obama, the challenge is to deliver two competing messages. He wants to join Mr. Netanyahu in warning Iran to abandon its nuclear program or face military action, but also to press him to give time to sanctions and diplomacy and hold back his military."

And as The Washington Post writes, 16 years after first raising the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran, Netanyahu "seems to have finally rallied the West to his cause, successfully thrusting Tehran's nuclear ambitions to the top of the international agenda. And in his second term as prime minister, he faces what could prove to be the most critical decision of his career, weighing whether to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, possibly over the objections of his staunchest ally in Washington."

For its part, Iran says it is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Update at 1:50 p.m. ET. Some Early Analyses:

— "While the two leaders struck a tableau of shoulder-to-shoulder solidarity, the differences in their approach to Iran were on display. Mr. Netanyahu said nothing about diplomacy and the economic sanctions that Mr. Obama promoted. And while the president repeated his vow that "all options are on the table" to halt Iran's pursuit of a weapon, he did not explicitly mention military force, as he did on Sunday." (The New York Times)

— "The United States and Israel agree that diplomacy is the best way to resolve the crisis over potential Iranian nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama said Monday, an optimistic view that Israel's leader declined to publicly endorse." (The Associated Press)


War, blah blah blah, Iran, blah blah blah. Ugh?

Ugh for sure.

They're like heroin addicts. They need a fix. I mean, we've cut down to only one war, and they have a 2-war-at-a-time habit!

Ha, so rehab?

Well, look how it helped lindsey lohan.

So what is the pulse of the pack on this one?

Candidates - please reply in one word responses only - yes, no, up, down, yea, ney...

MR-

NG-

RS-

RP-

BO-

Is it a rattle, or is it unsheathed?

Where are we going with this?

Should we be?