Since I am no expert at their code, I thought I would enable the wishes of OccupyOakland in getting the word out by posting in less walled of a garden. Makes sense, no? And so, here is the 'wall' of Occupy Oakland, to date.
Because friends don't let friends facebook without alternatives.
Facebook 'em, Dan-O.
Be seeing you.
In case you missed it, this report by the American Enterprise Institute -- as much a barometer of Washington's opinions as influence over them -- states that IRAN IS MORE DANGEROUS IF IT TURNS OUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AFTER NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WAR ALL ALONG. They are more of a threat to our interests if they are NOT hotheads. Why?
American Enterprise Institute Admits
The Problem With Iran
Is Not That It Would Use Nukes
by MJ Rosenberg
(do follow link; excellent article)
If you didn't know any better, you might ask why... AEI is still hell-bent on war. If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat," what is it truly about?
Fortunately, Pletka and Donnelly don't leave us guessing. It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse, with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region.
This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war) because virtually the entire Iranian population — from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society — are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neoconservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is through war.
At this point, it appears that they may get their wish. The only alternative to war is diplomacy, and diplomacy, unlike war, seems to be no longer on the table.
Read more -- do; this ARTICLE IS EXCELLENT!!
That would make us look bad. Like liars. Indeed.
Would we go to war to prevent this?
Think about it: it would be a war where our motives would be extremely suspect. From the get-go. Ah, says the Perceptive Reader: and how would it be different?
I pray that somehow it is.
Be seeing you.