I am not studying for a test right now because Obama is a weak president!

(Actually, that's legit: I am making a post about Obama being a weak president when I could be studying!)

Hmm... okay, you're right.  I missed it. 

By the way, xeno, I read your articles.

Polyculture is just using multiple crops instead of using only one crop.  That's not your advocacy, which was the use of those layered farms with some fruits on top of others.

Permaculture is simply creating a farmland that uses relationships between plants found in nature.

Yeah, that's not what you argued for, xeno... not by a long shot.

Flint?

Fair enough.  So I have to show that it was a sound argument.

Made a one-word post.

Holy shit!  I've never seen this before!

How do you judge who gets tag points?

And before anyone says it... it doesn't seem politically biased, to be honest.  Hell, xeno got one, and I don't think he had one person who agreed with him. 

I actually heard that a US special forces group deployed in the area was preparing to take out the pirates by hitting their base on land, but Obama hasn't given it the OK yet.

Mind you, it was from Hannity, so some of you may say it's not a legit source right up front. 

If that were true, then every one of those leaders would be bowing to Obama whenever they entered the US to meet him. 

Seriously... is BW calling me a leftist? 

> Einstein wrote:

> Russia continues to aid Iran despite their own financial issues. China continues to make arrangements which prove more profitable for them than not doing the arrangements.

These two nations WILL prop up Iran long enough for Iran to do something. It's because they both hear the sirens song of imperialism and this little nation will be their little brother in attitude. They also both hear the hypnotic music of profits, and with oil, even when the market is down, there is profits.

Okay, Flint, it's time for the trump card you were expecting! 

Here's the story:

Picture this: Obama offers to meet with Iran.  He says "okay, Ahmadinejad, we've got a deal for you.  Your economy is in the shithole, and you know it.  We're willing to take off international pressure, promise not to use military force against your government, and give you a lightwater reactor in exchange for you ending your nuclear program."

Ahmadinejad laughs and says, "You idiots.  Do you think we need your petty support?  You can't use your military against us anyway!  Your asses are strapped down in Iraq and Afghanistan, your people have become pretty much French when it comes to warfare, and our nation is as strong as ever!  We don't need your bullshit token offer!"

Now, I've already shown that this would piss off people domestically.  However... what about abroad?

After the negotiation failed, the US could now go to the UN and say, "Alright, guys, that's it.  We tried it your way, and it sucked.  And by the way, this was the perfect time for negotiation.  It can't get any better for us.  What now?"

The next event will be the shocker:

Sarkozy would call his UN delegate on the phone.  "We're sick of this bullshit.  We offered Iran everything they want, and they said no.  We had all the diplomatic ammunition.  It's pretty simple: Ahmadinejad is as stubborn as a mule.  We can't let them continue."

And yes... you heard this right... France will lobby for a military strike on Iran.

Sarkozy has been more hardright against Iran than even Bush.  France made it public policy that a terrorist attack in France would result in Iran being nuked.  NUKED.  Who the hell does that?

If Iran was given a pretty sweet deal that included economic and diplomatic incentives, and was simply asked to shut down its nuclear program, a refusal would essentially shut the door on soft diplomacy.  That leaves only one door, as far as France is concerned: the military option.

I cite France as the leader because it's the most likely nation to step forward.  But it's easily conceivable that Obama would step forward and say, "alright, that sucked.  I'm willing to strike Iran if NATO gives us some serious help."

And you know damn well Israel would be itching to bomb them once diplomacy fails.

So, Flint, the debate comes down to this:

If we accept your stance, we bomb Iran into the stone age.

If we accept my stance, the best case scenario is that a deal is in place.  The worst case scenario is that we bomb Iran into the stone age.

However, I'm not done yet:

Now let's compare the forms of our attacks:

Your attack would simply be the US attacking Iran.
The attack resulting from a failed negotiation would be after diplomatic options have failed.  That means, in terms of PR, the attack following diplomacy would be more easily justified.
In addition, an attack following diplomacy would be much more likely to see the participation of foreign allies, such as France and Britain, as more hardline nations could say to the more leftist nations, "okay, we tried it your way.  Ahmadinejad's an official pain in the ass.  Now grab your rifle and follow me."  And the left nations wouldn't have much they could say to respond: the US would have offered Iran a sweet economic deal, only to be turned down.  What more could we give them?  A $700 billion bailout? 

And before you say it, I haven't changed my advocacy.  I am not 100% supporting an attack on Iran: My argument is that an attack is the natural last resort if diplomacy fails, ushered in by the fact that hardright forces would be given a new tool in arguing their case: that Iran is too stubborn to accept even the best of diplomatic offers in the most dire of circumstances.

> Iran has a multitude of weapons systems. They have a crap airforce, and tank group, but their rocket and missile technologies is second to Russia for capabilities. Not ICBM's (yet) of course, but those rockets of theirs like the frogger are capable of putting the Straights of Hormuz (sp?) in to a sunken ship alley situation. Their entire defense is based upon one thing only truly, disrupt and destroy everything in range.

Their layered system is designed with the control via threat of force, if no greater force exists, oil through that entire region. If the United States were to back down they would place a tax upon all oil going out of the region or they would randomly sink ships.

See above. 
Also, it's not "backing down."  The US hasn't had a hardline militarist stance against Iran for a while.  The most aggressive action taken against Iran has been US efforts to help out insurgencies in Iran.  However, it was reported that the US stopped Israel from engaging in a strike against Iran toward the end of Bush's administration.  This easily indicates that, right now, the US is not at a stance where further negotiation would be "backing down."

> The more sophisticated systems they have been developing take this a bit further with super fast artillery systems on the coast line, the rocket systems they have from China and Russia, the speed boats they have made, patrol boats, etc than ever before. Truly a layered system designed to utterly destroy all ships in the sea there.

The missiles are their only effective offensive however. Those systems are being developed at all cost, as well as their nukes.

The entire profile fits that of a nation which thinks if it can stop ships, it can win a defensive war, and if they have nukes with ICBM's they can win any offensive war via terrorism.

Consider also that they have a history of 'the great satan' calling and 'lesser satan calling' as well as other efforts which are 'not profitable' yet helps with their domestic audience.

Above. 

> While the common Iranian knows of the 'peaceful' efforts, they are inclined due to historical brainwashing and ongoing efforts that anything we say from the United States is lies.

Take the cyber propaganda force in Iran for instance. They push especially hard on 9-11 being an inside job, the attack on Iraq not being justified, and other aspects designed by the United States hurts other nations and themselves as well. We, via the nonstop propaganda, are truly evil and not to be trusted ever.

This propaganda mostly still has effect. With Obama blaming the United States they have a convenient source to continue blaming us and acting very stand offish against us. They will play this up as 'we have always claimed this, but now the Great Satan admits this' to their own people and play up how they cannot trust us, nor negotiate.

They will then blame, like Obama blames Bush for everything, the United States for all their problems and seek ways to keep revenues up. I mean if the Democrats and Socialists in the United States can nonstop believe Bush is the fault of everything, then how hard is it for people raised for decades now to believe the same about the United States?

You guessed it: Above.
Also, this would undermine their propaganda: How could they blame the US when the US just offered a sweet deal?
In addition, your argument is empirically denied both by the fact that the US was able to assist a coup in Iran and by the fact that the US has an ongoing campaign to send TVs, radios, and other communication equipment to Iran, and broadcast news from the US... and the people of Iran actually listen!
They're not ignorant.  Many of them know about things like freedom and democracy from their dealings with European businessmen, and from smuggled information from the US.
Iran isn't an island, even though Ahmadinejad's brain apparently is. 

> I truly believe they will try to print their way out of this, and blame it on the United States.

Sweet.  That's a short term effort that will easily crash their program, as I have said above, and as you have failed to respond to.

>Thankfully Obama is a man who would beggar himself to Saudi Arabia to make them happy with him obviously, by the way he so deeply bowed to them as to prostate himself almost. Unbecoming to his rank in world society to say the least, and at worst showing he feels this man IS above him. That will keep Saudi Arabia from backing any new embargo's against the United States, which is a good thing at this juncture.

The true issue is that right here, right now, anyone who cares to be evil thinks there is no one to stand up against them. There is no leader in the world community now that will step up and say f( ) you and kill them dead. Obama scaring N. Korea? HAHAHA, making Iran wanna play nice? Pffft. And Russia is proceeding ahead with a massive arms build up for what purposes if they are so peaceful as Obama claims?

Yeah... there's France under Sarkozy.    And yes... I'm serious.