Got a call from a guy looking for people to help with Mainframe support in Iran earlier this week. Holy shit! you must be kidding! I don't know who the hell would do it, but I can see them called them a traitor. I had people working to get our product in a Bank in Terhan in 79 but scuttled that plan that year. The only place in the middle east that we put that system in was in Ankara Turkey. Unless some one did it since I haven't payed much attention. I guess places like China are selling them stuff they have legally imported now, but the real help must be hard to find. http://www.millennialmainframer.com/2014/03/mainframes-in-iran/
That's because they ARE morons. Coincidentally, the IQ's of all 47 combined and averaged is exactly 47. American-hating morons, who have committed an historic act of treason against America.
What treason? Treason is aiding an enemy to assist them in the overthrow of the government/nation. You have a vivid imagination, I'll give you that. trea·son ˈtrēzən/ noun the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. "they were convicted of treason"
18-year-old Americans joining a Mideastern army (even simply e-mailing to contacts over there for information) get 30 years in an American prison. So the Republicans who legislated those horrible sentences should get...1800 years for trying to start another major war, this time against Iran. But if I'm the judge, I'll let them off with only 18 months, if they serve that time in one of the torture prisons they legislated under Bush. 18 months of their own torture would do in all 47 of the monsters. We wouldn't be hearing from those warmonger scums anymore.
Enlisting in a foreign military without the express consent of the US government is punishable by loss of citizen ship. About time to start enforcing that law.
Israel exists by turning each Middle Eastern country upside-down every few years. But it can't afford a constant state of war, so it leverages the U.S. to do the job for free. The last war ruined us, in money, in permanent loss of some of our citizen rights, and in a meanness loss of humanitarian values by becoming eternally at war. After some little fish like the Arab Spring and Syria, the next big fish on Israel's list is Iran, with over double the population of Iraq (77M vs. 33M). Democrats are trying to find a peace treaty, while bloodthirsty, torture-loving Republicans always hunger for the next 15-year war. We will never recover what we had before Iraq, but we can stumble on, unless we fight with Iran, which will finish off the U.S. economy for good in offering any competition to China.
And yet it's the liberal washington post calling for war with Iran. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html War with Iran is probably our best option By Joshua Muravchik March 13 Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. And then there's the American Conservative response: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-appalling-case-for-an-unnecessary-war-with-iran/ The Appalling Case for an Unnecessary War with Iran By DANIEL LARISON • March 14, 2015, 4:48 AM
And American Jews vote republican, right? Ho ho ho , Time Magazine. http://time.com/3742725/us-iran-nuclear-deal-war/ Obama’s Nuclear Deal Could Mean War by Gabriel Scheinmann Gabriel Scheinmann is Director of Policy at The Jewish Policy Center. Inking this accord increases the chances that Israel and the United States take military action against Iran to stop its nuclear program
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...cotton-iran-letter-obama-20150315-column.html That GOP letter to Iran? Not illegal, but not smart either.
Who is this guy? Kind of looks like Denny. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_King_of_Jordan,_2013.jpg
My mistake. You made a statement, I offered a reasonable response, and you get nasty. I thought better of you.
Denny, The mistake you are making is treating this as a philosophical (Lib v Con) debate. This is a partisan debate. If Obama suggested military action against Iran, these same 47 "statesmen" would calling for further negotiations.
Maybe if Obama consulted with a few senators instead of saying, "I'll do it unilaterally," he might get some support.
I don't think he is looking for support. I suspect he is doing exactly what he wants. We shall see what ever that is, he sure as hell won't say until we have no alternative. It will be interesting to see how many like what they are going to get when it arrives. I don't suppose it will please many, no sense with holding good news this long. I am not all that much in favor of what Republicans want either. I see little benefit from going to war with ISIS, especially when we can let Iran (Shite's) do it. But that sure as hell better not mean letting Iran get a nuc, now or in 10 years.
When Obama consulted extensively with Republicans during his first term, and tried to please them while crafting legislation, they still would vote unanimously against it, making him their whipping boy. So he started doing things on his own. Otherwise, the crybabies always turn any power-sharing into immature partisan bickering, and politicize foreign policy. Grow up and help him lead, or get out of the way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html?tid=rssfeed The liberal WP is also saying