The 1953 Iranian coup d'état saw the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of the Iranian Prime Minister Mohamed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power by British and American intelligence operatives working together with Iranian agents and elements of the Iranian army. Bribing Iranian officials, news media and others with British and American funds, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),[1] organized the covert operation aiding retired Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi and Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri. The project to overthrow Iran's government was codenamed Operation Ajax.

Yes, a Republican administration overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and replaced it with a brutal dictatorship because the Iranians had the gall to think they should control their own oil. I can't imagine why these people don't trust us.

Eh... Ever is a long time. One supposes that once the regimes change a few times, the belligerency level will go down to a manageable level.

Not if we don't have a dialog with the future leaders, or offer incentives for the Iranian people to elect those less belligerent leaders. We ignored the significantly less beligerent Khatami, and all it got us was Ahmadinejad, what makes you think ignoring him will get us someone less beligerent in the future?

Little Green Footballs website

I find far right rant sites just as annoying as far left rant sites...

Petraeus is issuing a warning, here, to the Democrats: Stop playing political games with the situation

Right because you know, Republicans never play politics, just those horrible, awful Democrats.

The only reason we are even discussing Iran is because the Bush White House has been hard at work trying to manufacture an Iran crisis, just as it manufactured an Iraq crisis that led to the war there.

Besides, I think a military man interfering in the civilian leadership process would be a tad improper now, would it not? Or is the job of generals now under Bush to issue "warnings" to the opposition party?

Petraeus has effectively annihilated McCain's argument. Expect Obama to break this out in debates and McCain to break out a stutter.

What you guys seem to be missing is Petraeus is issuing a warning, here, to the Democrats: Stop playing political games with the situation or that last resort will happen.

Yes, what Petraeus surely meant, when he said we should talk rather than use force, is that we should refuse to talk until Iran does everything we want, and then if they don't, we should use force.

He said we should talk, rather than use force - but he meant that talking is still appeasement if it's not done in the non-conditional way you prefer.

Hmmmm. I think you're kidding yourself if you think that Petraeus has just agreed with your point of view.

Well, I'll let folks read your output and mine and let them decide who it is that's being small minded. Thats kinda how that works.

I don't need others to do my thinking for me. Are we clear on this, now?

Ah so. Then the small minded, paranoiac, right wing rants spring from your own cerebral cortex. OK, then...

Correction: It depends on everybody who will ever be in power there

Eh... Ever is a long time. One supposes that once the regimes change a few times, the belligerency level will go down to a manageable level.

On the other hand we could always have another Jimmy Carter to screw that up again.

(Hey, those kind of comments are credible when HE makes them....)

That's what managed switches are for.

(Shrug) Not my network. Bt they're obviously running some fairly heavy page cache on the proxy they have set up on the cold side of the wall.

I guess I don't much mind. I have a fairly busy day, and a decent MP3 collection.

No, I mock him for claiming that the inability to get AM reception in one building means that he is unable to get Rush's show should he care to.

No, you're trying to save face. It's OK by me, but let's call it what it is.

Well, here's a clue; I've not heard much of his show (Save the occasional repeat) for some time, now. Not that I object to the man, I've just never bothered chasing it all that much. On the occasions I've tried, it's not been available in the building I work in, and frankly, I never bothered chasing it past the casual attempt. (And yes, I do use him as a source for the blog occasionally)

It's not that I've never heard the show. Indeed;
I managed to catch Limbaugh's first show from a local then-Rimshotter, WYSL which was then a daytimer on 1030 here in Rochester. (they've since gone to 1040 and gone to 20kw. ) I was sitting in front of my 286-12, at the time, and doing up some new programming for my BBS, if that'll date the thing for you.

He was snapped up by Clear Channel within months, and ended up on the 50kw WHAM in town. (Funny... Err America tried the same path, and failed... they're stuck on Rimshotters to this day.)

Now, the transmitter site for WHAM is in Chili which is perhaps 20 miles west of town, and I work , and I work about 40 miles away, about 20 miles EAST of town, in a steel building, way out on the east side. No AM and few FM signals penetrate that building, at all. Half the time even my cell phone doesn't work.

Since I"m in a generous mood, here's another clue as to why it's not overly important: Limbaugh is as popular as he is, and has been for 20 years, not because he tells others what to think, but because he says what they're thinking already. Now does that give you another source to suggest I've been getting my 'dogma' from? Like for example, I've reasoned it out for myself?

I have a certain level of experience with it, too... I've been blogging for a hair under 8 years now and writing online editorials for longer than the 20 or so years Limbaugh has been on, dating back to the FIDONET and GT net days, back when a BBS was the way to get around... one line at a time, at 300 baud, and the net was Al Gore's wet dream.

Trust me when I tell you I don't need others to do my thinking for me. Are we clear on this, now?

anjin-san doesn't get out much. But...being homebound, he could always check out the Little Green Footballs website for current info about the goings-on of Iran and the Caliphate.

I voted for Reagan twice, and am happy to say I thought he was an excellent president. I strongly support what we are doing in Afghanistan & wish we would stop pursuing Bush's windmills in Iraq and would go after our real enemy in Afghanistan. I support a strong national security policy and want to see us support our troops with deeds, not lapel pins.

My first choice for president is Chuck Hagel, a Republican.

Yes, clearly I am all dogma...

But when someones thinking is almost entirely dogmatic, the dogma has to be coming from somewhere.

Pot meet kettle.

if you're trying to prove that he's a devout Rush follower.

Not trying to prove anything. But when someones thinking is almost entirely dogmatic, the dogma has to be coming from somewhere.