So, what's the over/under on the date Israel launches the preemptive strike.
With President Hussein the First having made it clear that he won't life a finger to help Israel and/or stop the Mullahs I figure Israel will do something during the next two months in the hope that Bush will back them up.
Iran said it successfully test-fired a new generation of long range surface-to-surface missile on Wednesday — one that could easily strike as far away as southeastern Europe with greater precision than earlier models.
The Sajjil is a solid fuel high-speed missile with a range of about 1,200 miles, Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar said on state television. At that range, it could easily strike Iran's arch-foe Israel and go as far as southeastern Europe.
Solid-fuel missiles are more accurate than the liquid fuel missiles of similar range currently possessed by Iran. The country has had a solid-fuel missile with a shorter range — the Fateh, able to fly 120 miles — for several years.
The Islamic Republic News Agency said the test was conducted Wednesday, and television showed the missile being fired from a desert launching pad.
Najjar said the missile was a defensive weapon and not a response to threats against Iran. He didn't name any country, but Israel has recently threatened to take military action against Iran to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Najjar said the missile was part of a "defensive, deterrent strategy ... specifically with defensive objectives."
The defense minister, quoted by Iran state television, said the two-stage missile with two solid-fuel engines has "an extraordinary high capability" but gave no further details. He did not say whether it was capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Israel's Foreign Ministry refused comment about the missile test.
In Washington, the State Department said the missile tests were not good for the stability of the region and were another sign that U.S. plans to construct a missile shield in Europe are critical to international security. Department spokesman Robert Wood said Washington hoped Russia, which has criticized the proposed shield, would recognize the threat posed by Iran and realize the system is not aimed at Russia.
"I think it's pretty obvious when Iran launches one of these ballistic missiles, that this is something of concern to the international community, and I'm including Russia in the international community here," he said.
The name "Sajjil" means "baked clay," a reference to a story in the Quran, Islam's holy book, in which birds sent by God drive off an enemy army attacking the holy city of Mecca by pelting them with stones of baked clay.
Iran has intensified its domestic missile development in recent years, raising concerns of the U.S. and its allies at a time when they accuse the country of seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies it wants to build a bomb, saying its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity.
In a speech coinciding with the missile launch, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that his government would act against any threats.
"The Iranian nation defends its dignity. Should any power stand against the Iranian nation, the Iranian people will crush it under its foot and will strike it on the mouth," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.
Ahmadinejad added that it doesn't matter who comes to power in America because the important question will be how a future U.S. administration will behave.
The Sajjil's range puts it at around the same range as Iran's other farthest-flying missiles — a version of the Shahab-3 unveiled in 2005 and the Ghadr, which was shown off at a September 2007 military parade. The Shahab-3 missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and its latest versions use a combination of liquid and solid fuel.
Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane. Najjar said the Sajjil was built by the Defense Ministry's aerospace department.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
So, what's the over/under on the date Israel launches the preemptive strike.
With President Hussein the First having made it clear that he won't life a finger to help Israel and/or stop the Mullahs I figure Israel will do something during the next two months in the hope that Bush will back them up.
Thoughts?
I have seen some experts say that now that Obama won Israel will not even consult the USA anymore when it comes to stuff like that so I could see it happening at any moment.
President-elect Barack Obama has promised major changes in U.S. diplomacy and repeatedly criticized the Bush administration on both substance and style. Mr. Obama has pledged more negotiation and multilateralism -- less saber-rattling and "take it or leave it" unilateralism. While Iraq was Mr. Obama's focal point in the campaign, the biggest problem ahead is countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But on proliferation, what is striking are the similarities between Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush's second term. Given Mr. Bush's recent record, continuity between the two presidencies is hardly reassuring. And where Mr. Obama differs with Mr. Bush, he is only more accommodating to the intractable rogues running Pyongyang and Tehran. This is decidedly bad news.
Iran's supreme leader yesterday rebuffed President Obama's latest outreach for peace.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was responding to a video message Obama released Friday in which he reached out to Iran on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year, and expressed hopes for improved relations after 30 years of hostility.
Khamenei holds the last word on major policy decisions, and how Iran ultimately responds to any US effort to engage the mullah-led regime will depend largely on his say.
Khamenei, whose regime is racing to develop nukes and has threatened to destroy Israel, said there will be no change between the United States and Iran unless Obama puts an end to US hostility toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy.
"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
Thank Allah that Obama has chosen the path of being nice to the Iranian government. They'd never attack our bases as long as we're being nice.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
President Obama backed Iran's claim that it has a right to nuclear energy -- but only if the country proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
Obama told the BBC in an interview broadcast Tuesday that he believes "Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
The interview comes on the heels of Obama's most important trip of his fledgling presidency, a face-to-face encounter with the Muslim world. Obama's five-day pilgrimage to Egypt this week culminates with a long-promised speech on U.S. relations with the Muslim world.
With that, some speculation is swirling that the U.S. effort to reach Muslims is accompanied by its distancing itself from Israel, which is under pressure by the Obama administration to freeze its settlements in the West Bank.
Obama's speech aims to help repair a strained relationship between the United States and the Muslim world that is critical to pressuring Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, which the international community fears is a cover for building a nuclear bomb.
The Bush administration had insisted that Iran scrap enrichment before diplomatic talks could begin. But Iran repeatedly rejected the demand and expanded its enrichment activities, triggering three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions.
Obama will deliver the speech at Cairo University, that White House officials call a bastion of secular Muslim thinking that reflects the side of Islam that the U.S. is appealing to in its case for a strategic partnership.
"Egypt is not only a strategic ally of the United States, but it, like the rest of the Muslim world, is a young country which obviously presents the United States with a terrific opportunity to deepen this cooperation that has really developed over the course of the last several decades, but to deepen that and to press it forward here into the future," Denis McDonough, deputy national security advisor said.
"So the message the president wants to send is not different, frankly, than the one he's been sending since he was inaugurated, namely that we believe that this is an opportunity for us in the United States, who frankly, have arrived at a place here based on many of the advances that come out of the Muslim world, be it science out of Baghdad, be it math and technology out of Al-Andalus (University) or otherwise," he continued.
In his efforts to engage the Muslim world, Obama said during his inaugural speech that the United States "will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. He also declared earlier this spring in Turkey that the United States "is not and never will be at war with Islam."
Obama has granted interviews to Arabic-language networks, telephoned friendly Arab leaders and sent special envoy George J. Mitchell to the Middle East on a "listening tour."
Obama has rejected the notion that efforts to engage the Arab world comes at the sacrifice of Israel, telling National Public Radio that the U.S. must "retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace."
"And that's going to require, from my view, a two-state solution that is going to require that each side -- the Israelis and Palestinians -- meet their obligations," he said.
Obama explained those obligations include Israelis freezing settlements and Palestinians continuing to make security gains and ending incitement that worries Israel.
"So the key is to just believe that the process can move forward and that all sides are going to have to give," he added. "And it's not going to be an easy path, but one that I think we can achieve."
But foreign policy experts say achieving a successful peace plan faces long odds, particularly considering that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already rejected Obama's call to freeze settlements, setting up a potential confrontation.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say fuck Africa. All of it.
The whole continent is shit. Egypt fucking hate Americans. Everybody hates Americans.
While I'd agree that Africa is an impoverished AIDS-infested backward excrement-hole, I'd disagree with the part about "everybody hates Americans".
The Muslim world hates us, yes. Although many of them live in the U.S. and enjoy religious freedom and economic opportunity they'd never have in their home countries.
But sub-Saharan Africa loves the U.S., because we provide them with a lot of foreign aid and development, that gives them goodwill toward us.
And Eastern Europe loves us, because they see us as their protection from Russia, since the Iron Curtain disappeared.
I think most actually like Americans and American culture, they just disagree with our foreign policy, often because they are never exposed to a pro-American counter-viewpoint, just a steady diet of anti-American propaganda. Again: the free-est form of Islam practiced in the world is in the United States. And we fought wars to protect Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and Iraq. We've also given humanitarian aid (post-earthquake, post-tsunami) to islamic Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia. In a fair debate, they wouldn't hate us. If they actually do.
But sub-Saharan Africa loves the U.S., because we provide them with a lot of foreign aid and development, that gives them goodwill toward us.
But, sub-Saharan Africa is the shit hole (save, South Africa). Most of it sucks and despite the aid and such that we give them, the infrastructure built by the colonizing empires are still decaying. I'm with Jaburg. Torch the whole continent.
The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.
President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
"We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran," Kelly said. "We tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."
Way to shit, literally shit, on the meaning of Independence Day. I wonder how many innocent young women must be shot before the invitation is rescinded?
Total bullshit that's what I'm saying. We don't have to start a war with Iran just stand up and say we support the people for quietly protesting. The protestors aren't getting violent, it's the government! But NOOOOOO, let's invite them into the White House and reward their bad behavior!
Reminds me of the good ol' days when presidents used to stand up for the rights of freedom:
Iranians will have to decide whether they want to attend Fourth of July celebrations at U.S. embassies, President Obama said Tuesday, linking their attendance to the potential for warming between the two nations.
The United States and Iran don't have formal diplomatic relations but Obama said that it's up to the Iranian diplomats to decide whether to use an invitation to attend embassy festivities as an opening.
"I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles, then we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations. But that is a choice that the Iranians are going to have to make," Obama said during a press conference in the White House briefing room.
Despite a crackdown on protesters by the Iranian government, State Department spokesman Ian Kelley on Monday reaffirmed the invitation to Iranian diplomats to attend Independence Day parties at U.S. embassies around the world next month.
Kelly that no one is going to take back offers for Iranian officials to join the festivities, even as the Islamic Republic's leaders threaten violence against protesters at home demonstrating against falsified presidential election results.
"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," Kelly said. "We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran. And -- and we tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."
Late last month, the State Department encouraged officials at all U.S. embassies and consulates to ask their Iranian counterparts to attend the July 4 parties, which generally feature speeches about American values, fireworks, hot dogs and hamburgers.
The notice said that the posts "may invite representatives from the government of Iran" to the events.
The move came amid the administration's ongoing efforts to engage Iran in variety of venues, including formal diplomatic meetings over its nuclear program, violence in Iraq and the situation in Afghanistan.
But the decision "stunned" the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee
"I am stunned that some find it appropriate for U.S. officials to comingle with officials, representatives and agents of the Iranian regime this Independence Day. What kind of message does this send to the Iranian people, who are bravely standing up for the same rights and freedoms which Americans celebrate on this day?" asked Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., an outspoken critic of Iran, Cuba and other despotic regimes.
"It is time for the United States to rescind this invitation and, instead, express our unwavering support for the Iranian people and their dreams and ideals. This Independence Day, we must stand with all who yearn to live free, instead of fraternizing with their oppressors," she said.
It was not immediately clear how many embassies and consulates would actually invite Iranian diplomats to the July 4 parties or whether any Iranians would accept the invitations.
See, that's nothing but trouble. One: They won't eat pork because Allah says it's bad. Two: You try to be nice and buy some Kosher hot dogs. Then, they all get pissed off because you've compared them to the Jews, who fake the whole Holocaust thing, btw. Three: Even if you can calm them down after all of that, they're still pissed that you're serving hot dogs because, as it's been pointed out, Muslims hate dogs. It's better to just have an ice cream social instead.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
what bothers me most about this is I'm sure the liberals in this country had never thought of a body tax, im sure theyll consider implementing this soon as well!
Don't forget the bullet tax for when you're loved one is killed by the stormtroopers while refusing to go to the 're-education camps'.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Does this count as Obama throwing the Iranian people under the bus?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem are included in the US demand that Israel halt "settlement" construction, including for natural growth, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told The Jerusalem Post during a press briefing on Monday.
"We're talking about all settlement activity, yes, in the area across the line," he said, referring to neighborhoods in Jerusalem over the Green Line, or pre-1967 armistice line, in response to a question on where America's calls to halt construction in the settlements would be applied.
Even so, Kelly had no immediate reaction to the Ministry of Housing and Construction's inclusion in the draft 2009-10 state budget of funds for the capital's Jewish Har Homa neighborhood or for one in the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim.
The ministry has earmarked more than NIS 200 million for the preparatory work and marketing of 1,210 apartments in the east Jerusalem Jewish neighborhood of Har Homa.
The line item, which sets aside funds for the new apartment projects, can be found in the draft state budget now being debated in the Knesset.
The money for these projects has been allocated at a time when tensions remain high between Israel and the United States regarding construction over the Green Line.
Israel has always insisted that it has a right to build anywhere in Jerusalem because the state incorporated that land into the municipality and under Israeli law it is not considered part of the West Bank. But the international community considers Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem to be settlements and has condemned any new Jewish construction there.
Har Homa has been a particular sticking point because of its location on the city's southeast edge, next to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem.
The Obama administration had not officially clarified its position on Jewish neighborhoods over the Green Line but within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, but the Netanyahu government had been working under the assumption that US officials' call to halt even natural growth in the settlements did not refer to neighborhoods in the city, according to high-placed government officials.
Kelly's comments Monday, however, made clear that Jerusalem was included, suggesting that efforts to finesse the disagreement could be further complicated.
US President Barack Obama has called the settlements illegitimate and said that their expansion must stop, including natural growth.
While Israel has expressed its willingness to take down unauthorized West Bank outposts, it has balked at halting natural growth in the settlements, arguing that communities need to continue to function normally.
The dispute between the two allies has been unusually public, including messy wrangling over tacit arrangements sketched out far from the spotlight under the Bush administration.
Though Israel in 2003 signed onto the US-sponsored road map peace plan, which calls for a settlement freeze including natural growth, government sources claim that Bush officials assented to construction continuing in settlements expected to remain with Israel under any peace accord with the Palestinians.
The Obama administration, however, has contended that if such understandings were ever discussed in private, they were not resolved or made binding.
Either way, as part of the Bush-era arrangements, Israel was supposed to stop providing financial incentives for Israelis to move to these communities.
Though the new budget proposal might not subsidize individuals, it would provide money for some of the work on the 240 pre-approved homes in 2009 as well as marketing and preparatory work for 970 additional units in Har Homa, which still await approval from the Jerusalem Municipality.
Unlike in the West Bank, construction in Har Homa or any other part of Jerusalem does not need the approval of the Prime Minister's Office or the Defense Ministry.
The Prime Minister's Office had no comment on the earmarking of funds for Har Homa. The Jerusalem Municipality and the Construction and Housing Ministry could not be reached for a reaction.
Peace Now's Hagit Ofran, who alerted reporters to the line item in the draft budget, said pushing ahead with Har Homa construction would be "unwise."
"It risks our foreign relations and our international standing for another project which is totally leading us to a situation where we cannot have a two-state solution," Ofran said.
The same 2009-2010 budget includes more than NIS 150m. for infrastructure work in the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement, east of the capital. The funds would create gardens, parks and roads for homes that have already been built in a neighborhood known as 07. Work has been ongoing in that neighborhood for the last decade, and some 3,100 apartment units have been built there. Some 400 apartment units have yet to be completed in that area.
Ma'aleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel said that private contractors had financed all the recent work on the project.
The money from the ministry's budget for this project was a fiction, he said, in that it merely returned funds that were paid to the ministry by the contractors.
But a ministry spokesman said money had been set aside by his office to complete the 07 project.
Peace Now attacked the funding of the Ma'aleh Adumim project, saying it ran counter to the expectations of the United States and the international community that Israel would freeze settlement activity, which meant stopping any construction.
From 2003 to 2007, some 2,000 new apartment units were completed in the Jerusalem suburb, which Israel has made clear it expects to keep in any final-status deal with the Palestinians.
Slowly and painfully.
