Pres Obama sends Aircraft Carrier group up Iran's ass.

Just when I think my nephew is safe at Home after returning from the sand pit... :down:
Iran is like North Korea...desires attention in a sick sick way.

 

Which goes to my point that he is doing what he does best, letting other people do the work. Just like his voting record as a State and U.S. Senator....Present.

For what it is worth, is non-action last year during the election riots in Iran his non-action on Syria and Egypt, non-action on the assasination plot of a diplomat on US soil, non-action on the RQ-170 have emboldened Iran. Would they be pushing the issues this far today if there had been some initial pushback on his part earlier? I don't think so. Bottom line, they do not respect or fear him at this point and it shows in their actions. They will continue to push the envelope until he shows some sort of conviction to use force against them. Which, will probably mean some sort of military engagement. I don't think it will be a full out attack, but some sort of skirmish in which he will have to show his willingness to commit to a full scale war.

 

My point with the Bush comparison is that he didn't let others do their job. He let shitbags prevent the military from doing their job. Bush did fine with the initial force but then it turned into politics. And your mixing in way more subjects than what my reference was. I specified the military being able to do their job and I feel Obama has done well in that part. He is suppose to let others do it. You're bringing up diplomacy, politics and foreign policy. Obama sucks with that shit.

Time will tell. I'm just waiting to see what happens with the Navy in the Straits. That's where we will find out if he has any real balls.

 

I still feel Syria is a big player in what Iran does. If your the leadership of Iran, your seeing what happened in Lybia, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Bahrain,and their own near overthrow last year. Based upon those outcomes, if they lose Syria they lose an important ally in the region. It is important for them to take pressure off of Syria and keep that regime in control. If they can take the focus off of Syria by occupying our forces without the threat of anything really happening, they have occomplished their goal. If they get some nuclear tidbits out of it, even better.

 

Every one of Syria's neighbors has a stake in what happens there. That's why none of them are speaking out. Russia has dumped a ton of influence in Syria and definitely don't want to see a regime change. I don't think Iran has much to do besides supporting their own ethnic faction in Syria. This was coming since Bassar closed his medical practice to get dictator training. If he'd had the chops for this his father never would've let him go. But he was the only heir left and his failure was virtually given.

Iran will get nukes just like Pakistan did: Because China wants them to. We couldn't do anything about Pakistan and we won't do anything about Iran.

Iran certainly suspects that Israel is behind all the shenanigans going on within it's borders. It's a real thumb in the eye that the coordinated attacks this week included a bomber on a motorcycle just like Israel is accused of doing. Carrying this out in Delhi has wider implications though since that terrorism trail typically runs through Pakistan. Add Thailand to the mix and I'm not sure what it means besides somebody with a long reach is allying here.

Does all this mean that Iran is more capable than ever or that they've got alot of help. My bet is the later and I think we're being baited into a conflict.

 

Syria's problem is that they don't have any oil or money. The Soviets propped up for decades because they needed a foothold in the middle east. Shit, Egypt let the soviets down and Jordan turned out to be little more than hippies. The Iranians were as much or a problem as a solution. The PLO were a useful tool for a bit but even today, no one wants them around.
Now Syria is out there on their own and little more than a one balled yappy dog standing in belly deep snow.

 

Good Lord, Doug, "your" is the possessive form. You are = you're.

 

I'm curious how your system deals with homonyms, do you blurt them out and the system ask for a confirmation?


Edit: My apologies if this is the elentyth million times you've been asked...

 

It generally looks at words in context. I think it uses some kind of algorithm to make a decision based on the words directly surrounding the one that could have two different spellings. But it still gets it wrong on occasion (especially with to, too, two) and I have to make a correction. Sometimes, the correction is made a second or two after the word is written, so that can get pretty annoying when the first choice was the correct one and it changes after I have already read it.

 

trudat

 

So, how do you contend with sentences like above, where you specify the three different spellings? Do you have to spell each one or, or let it try to autocorrect, then go back and correct it?

 

You can spell a word instead of saying it. Or (the method I use) you can "type" it instead of saying it, using the mouse-operated virtual keyboard that's integrated with all Windows operating systems.

 

Same issue with multi-lingual speel chuck. It takes a while to recognize in which language you're typing and auto-corrects a mess...

You must specify in which language you want to dictate or does it recognize it?

 

I don't have multilingual software. Everything is set up in English. They make a bilingual version, I believe, but I never had much interest in trying it.

 

Sage decision...

 

What do hymens have to do with this??

 

Either way, they sound the same in my mind.

 

I would have opted for the cunnilingual version.
Although it does make your breath smell funny.

 

Khameini is currently politically extremely vulnerable, hence the cracks and contradictions in the Iranian facade. A military strike against their nuclear program is going to solidify his power and ensure that indigenous regime change doesn't occur for several more decades. Either we go all the way and end their threat permanently by ending the current regime, or we continue to delay them as much as possible. The Republican Guard is being squeezed because of Khameini's policies, I think eventually he will be liquidated and more reasonable (IE: money hungry) people will take over. That's undoubtedly what the US and Israeli strategy is.

The Iranian people are a great people, I'll very much enjoy the day when Imadinnerjacket and Khameini are lined up against a wall and shot.

 

Maybe we should just achieve regime change with a few well-placed air strikes and then let the populace pick up the pieces. The world would express outrage but, really, what could they do about it?
Sounds stupid? Obama got great press when he employed that strategy in Libya.
Of course, that was done FOR BIG OIL.