One of the Administration’s big campaigning points (back when Obama was campaigning before the election, as opposed to whatever he’s been doing this past nine months) was that he’d re-establish America’s purported image abroad.
Which, at this remove, brings up two questions:
- With whom, exactly, has our image improved since January, in any meaningful way (and by “meaningful” I am not referring to cheap talk and blandishments like the utterly meaningless Nobel Peace prize)?
- More importantly: Of the countries that hated, disliked, were utterly ambivalent to, or competed with the United States in 2007, which did not exhibit precisely the same feelings toward us in 2000? For purposes of this discussion, leave out the Taliban goverment in Afghanistan and the Ba’ath government in Iraq. List ’em, and give specifics, please.
I’ll be interested in seeing the responses.
Chamberlain got a bad rap – deservedly so as it came to Munich and the whole “bailing on Poland” thing. It was a shame; he otherwise was a good PM. And he did a notable job as Minister of the Exchecquer in retiring the debts from World War I.
Which I write not so much to defend Chamberlain as to go officially over 100 comments.
angryclown said:
“If Obama does nothing else in his presidency, he improves our standing by not being a shallow, incompetent boob.”
Because that is the job, according to angryclown: being a deeply incompetent boob.
”No other country has since been willing to supply additional fuel,” notes former weapons inspector David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security.”
I wonder why? Is it because Iran is such a peace loving state that only wants to enrich uranium for medical uses?
Oh, and radioisotopes themselves can be purchased without a need for a reactor to make them.
JPA:
“Is it because Iran is such a peace loving state that only wants to enrich uranium for medical uses?” No they probably refused because they want the leverage to stop an Iranian weapons program. If the deal goes through, we will be able to supply the Iranian medical program and block their weapons program. Good clever negotiations.
“radioisotopes themselves can be purchased” Sure but they are expensive, require foreign currency, degrade quickly, and are subject to embargo. Iran wants the security of being able to produce their own, plus the chance to become the regional supplier.
Is it your position that the U.S. should block Iran from operating their legal medical reactor (which we gave them) even if it operates with a fuel that does not help any potential weapons program?
Kermit:
“*facepalm*” Sorry I if I missunderstood you, but I was not sure what to make of your comment. Thus, the “???” In Eastern Europe in 1945 they were not many other tanks than Russians and Germans.
JPA:
Whatever happened to this:
“y o u d o n o t n e e d e n r i c h e d u r a n i u m t o p r o d u c e m e d i c a l g r a d e i s o t o p e s”
What is the way Iran can produce medical isotopes without some form of enriched uranium? Or did you give up on that and move on to the suggestion that they should buy the isotopes?
Iran wants the security of being able to produce their own, plus the chance to become the regional supplier.
Ah. So it was all a big mis-translation! Ahmadinejad really said “we’ll give all the Israelis x-rays!
And they’re burying a perfectly legal medical uranium production facility underground because they’re going green!
And as to the use of all that “highly enriched uranium” (HEU), which the medical profession is trying to get away from using anyway? Wow – there must be a lot of cancer patients in Iran. Like, all of them.
Mitch:
What is your point? Do you want to prevent Iran from operating their (U.S. supplied) medical reactor with a safe fuel?
As for the Isrealies, they like the deal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8334235.stm
“Mr Netanyahu said: “I think that the proposal to have Iran withdraw its enriched uranium, or a good portion of it, outside Iran is a positive first step.” He also praised US President Barack Obama’s efforts in drawing global attention to the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.”
Come on people, Ahmadinejad deserves a lot of credit for being NOT Bush! That’s all you really need to know, right RinkyDinkDFL?
“radioisotopes themselves can be purchased” Sure but they are expensive, require foreign currency, degrade quickly, and are subject to embargo. Iran wants the security of being able to produce their own, plus the chance to become the regional supplier.
Can’t believe that ‘regional supplier of isotopes’ line was written with a straight face. C’mon, you’re pulling my leg, RickDFL.
Terry:
“you’re pulling my leg, RickDFL” Why do you think that? Iran has a chance to make money on an important and growing medical technology. They would be stupid to not take advantage of the fact that they have one of the very few reactors that can produce medical isotopes.
Same question to you, do you want to prevent Iran from operating their (U.S. supplied) medical reactor with a safe fuel?
“Why do you think that?”
Because becoming a regional supplier of ‘medical isotopes’ could be your waggish style of referring to nuclear warheads launched on top of the medium range missiles that Iran is developing alongside the means to create fissionable material.
You are a funny guy!
Terry:
“‘medical isotopes’ could be your waggish style of referring to nuclear warheads” It is not. Allowing Iran to produce medical isotopes with a safer fuel prevents them from getting a warhead. It also gives them an incentive to deal.
Come folks, other than bad puns anybody object to the deal (which is not a deal yet)?
Water is wet.
RickDFL: Not it’s not. Water is merely a near-frictionless substance which, when it adheres to another substance, makes THAT substance wet. Come on, people, this isn’t a tough concept to grasp. Granted, I’m a hopeless contrarian on par with that Tolstoy-esque Peev, but my point still stands.
Whatever happened to this:
“y o u d o n o t n e e d e n r i c h e d u r a n i u m t o p r o d u c e m e d i c a l g r a d e i s o t o p e s”
It is a valid statement. Ever heard of Cyclotron? Which Iran, by the way, has.
do you want to prevent Iran from operating their (U.S. supplied) medical reactor with a safe fuel?
There is no such thing as “safe fuel” if you have the capability to enrich it – which is what Iran is trying to do. It’s like saying Zyclon B was a harmless chemical in Hitler’s hands.
“Ever heard of Cyclotron? Which Iran, by the way, has.” Do they have a cyclotron that can produce the medical isotopes they need?
“There is no such thing as “safe fuel” if you have the capability to enrich it – which is what Iran is trying to do.”
I am just going with Radio Free Liberty
http://www.rferl.org/content/Iran_Vows_To_Enrich_Uranium_Further_If_Talks_Fail/1855578.html
“Western diplomats said Iran had signaled in Geneva that it was ready to ship about three-quarters of its declared stockpile of 5 percent-enriched uranium to Russia for refinement to 19.7 percent purity, then to France for fabrication into fuel rods. The material would replace the dwindling reactor fuel with material in a form that is resistant to higher enrichment.”
Iran currently has a supply of low-enriched uranium and the capacity to turn it into weapons grade material. If they give up the low-enriched uranium for the 19.7% formed into fuel rods, won’t it be harder for them to produce weapons grade material? Doen’st that leave us better off?
The objection to “the deal” is that its purpose is to take away enough of Iran’s LEU that it will be unable to create a nuclear weapon. The Iranians (as usual) are balking. Apparently these ‘medical isotopes’ aren’t so desperately needed after all.
You may be the only human being in the world who believes that a stockpile of LEU large enough to create a nuclear bomb is required to make ‘medical isotopes’. I’m sure the Mullahs, the Iranian people, and diplomats on all sides know that it is a fiction.
resistant
Harder, if you do not have the necessary technology – yes. Impossible – absolutely not. This is like rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It is going down unless you remove the iceberg from the path, ’cause the captain ain’t gonna change course.
Do they have a cyclotron that can produce the medical isotopes they need?
What medical radioisotopes do they indeed need? What facilities do they have that can actually use them? It’s not like they have medical centers with equipment (VERY expensive equipment) sitting idle? It’s not like you put a radioisotope into a pill, hand it to a patient and send him home.
“If Obama does nothing else in his presidency, he improves our standing by not being a shallow, incompetent boob.”
Ahem, a post I did a few months ago on my blog, AC.
And you think George W. Bush was a dummy?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of
the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of
inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon
Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically
significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod
containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought
this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia,
would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference
to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you
have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of
advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on
their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to
refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican
ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo),
and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have
winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had miss-spelled the word advice would
you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and
potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to
go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have
concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force
One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet
fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic,
would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what
happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need
A teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press
conference, would you have laughed and said this is more
proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled
by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood
victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or
made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made
into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism
and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a
major corporation, even though he had no constitutional
authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national
debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate,
in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt
again 10 times within years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s
holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority
stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have
approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes
him so brilliant and impressive? Can’t think of
anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all the above in
just 5 months — so be patient you’ve still got three
years and seven months to come up with an answer…
He’s a self serving prick, I’d take an “imcompetent boob” over him any day of the week.
Heh. Quite a list!
what is it about Obama that makes
him so brilliant and impressive?
But…but…he went to Princeton! And Harvard!
Mitch, keep in mind that list can be longer now. Cass Sunstien, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, stiffing the Dali Llama, and thats just what I can remember off the top of my head.
Terry:
“The objection to “the deal” is that its purpose is to take away enough of Iran’s LEU that it will be unable to create a nuclear weapon.” Read literally your saying you want Iran to have a bomb, which can’t be true, so you will have to rephrase.
“The Iranians (as usual) are balking.” Isn’t that a sign that this is a good deal? We don’t want them too eager.
“a stockpile of LEU large enough to create a nuclear bomb is required to make ‘medical isotopes’” I said exactly the opposite. The stockpile of LEU is not required because they can ship it to Russia/France and get the fuel rods that are resistent to weaponization.
“The Iranians (as usual) are balking.” Isn’t that a sign that this is a good deal? We don’t want them too eager.
Wow. Just. . . wow.
When your head hits a wall, does it make a ringing sound?
Occidental & Columbia. He majored in foreign policy.
Bush got an BA from Yale & an MBA from Harvard.
Bush=legacy admission. Obama=affirmative action admission. Same thing as far as I’m concerned.
No, we wouldn’t want Iran to be ‘too eager’ to give up there stockpile of enrichable LEU, RickDFL. Why, that would be a disaster!
You really are kidding, right? Are you really this dense and gullible?
Didn’t you say once that you worked for the government?
Yossarian:
You would prefer a deal the Iranians were eager for?
That would be a complete diplomatic failure, RickDFL!
You really aren’t serious, are you? Are you working for the Iranians?
Please, Rick. I’ve come to grips with the fact you’re basically playing devil’s advocate here; that, or you suffer from Internet Commenting Disorder. Either way, if you could at least TRY to not come across as a complete moron when making a half-assed attempt at stating a point, that would be most excellent.
I think the Japanese surrendered a little too quickly after we dropped two A-bombs on them. I think they’re up to something.
I’ve come to grips with the fact you’re basically playing devil’s advocate here
I think you mean ‘court jester’, Yossarian.
I think the term you’re looking for is “fluffer”
Terry/Yossarian
I assume the Iranian are not eager to give up their LEU. Do you disgree?
If you don’t, then any deal that requires them to give up their LEU (and makes it harder for them to get a nuke) is going to be a deal for which they are not eager. Do you agree?
Okay, now you’ve just achieved “short bus window licker” status.
Oh shut the f*ck up, rickDFL. You stopped making sense long, long ago.
[spills coffee all over the keyboard reading comment 133]
RatioRinkyDink – that was for the ages! An you owe me a new keyboard!
Yoss/Terry/JPA
It looks like you have nothing productive to say. Probably because you have no objection to the deal.
Whatever conclusion you need to reach in order to get yourself through the weekend, Rick. . .
Just an FYI, however: “having nothing productive to say” and “refusing to engage someone who is clearly off his intelligence meds” are two totally different things.
Once I realized your tank was empty and you were simply babbling nonsense, I decided you weren’t worth any effort beyond casual insults aimed at your colossal stupidity which, believe me, is a target rich environment.
Or, hey, to put it in limerick form for old time’s sake:
There’s a putrid and sickening smell,
Wafting from the head of RickDFL
His brain is decaying,
Hence the nonsense he’s saying.
He’s down to his last functioning cell.
Yossarian:
Instead of droaning on with lame insults maybe you should just try explaining what I said that was wrong and why you think it was wrong.
I explained in my “(sic) droaning” comment exactly why I wasn’t going to do that.
Now go saw your nut sac with your keys.
RickDFL, in order to listen productively you need to
A) Know what negotiating in good faith means (you don’t)
B) Know what negotiating in bad faith means (you don’t)
C) Know the difference between them (you don’t)
Hey I know! If Iran does accept the deal lets turn them down! Don’t want to be seen ‘giving in too easily’!
Like I said, a f*ckin’ idiot. As Bing Crosby about the Headless Horseman, “You can’t reason with a headless man”.
I bet Rick thought Saddam never had any WMD until he gassed the Kurds too. To think that Iran isn’t trying to get a nuke is stupid, naive, or just plain lazy. Whatever, Israel will take out their facilities by the end of the year, end of story. And if someone is stupid enough to attack Israel in retaliation they should nuke their ass. Besides the government of Iran wants the 12th Imam to come. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy they could have had a revolution this summer and had new leadership in charge by now. Iran is doomed, and once again were going to have another country clean up our mess that Carter started back in the 70’s