Hahah...that was funny.  Obama is weak, and could care less about Iran getting nukes.

I'm not screaming end of the world, you are.  Real-world unemployment is near 20%, and it has a big effect on the economy. 

You now it is difficult to teach someone that is unwilling to learn. Any one with reasoning skills could figure out that with the sheer cost and magnitude of the Manhattan Project, the Russians had received key assistance from sources other than the few captured German scientists they had. But I'll do your research for you, in case you want to respond in an informed manner:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/family.html PBS is that unbiased enough?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/spies/fuchs/1.html A longer read.

http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/13031/?a=f

Here is some modern stuff:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/spies/walker/1.html Remember this one?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-26-592200836_x.htm

 http://www.aim.org/special-report/russian-spies-targeted-and-used-clinton-official/

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/04/world/bonn-sniffs-for-russian-moles-worrying-cia.html?pagewanted=1

Here's a little info on your "German Scientist's helped" theory:

"In the United States in the 1950s, Russians were portrayed as "retarded folk who depended mainly on a few captured German scientists for their achieve­ments, if any." Russians, for their part, vehemently deny all claims of the German origins of the Soviet bomb and wield in their defense the statement of Max Steenbeck (a German theorist who pioneered supercritical centri­fuges for uranium enrichment in the USSR)  that "all talk that Germans have designed the bomb for the Sovi­ets is nonsense."

Sounds like for a young fellow, you have a 1950's  attitude on the subject. The whole document is here complete with citations http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/72pavel.pdf 

Yes, I believe we put them on trial.  I can't remember their names but it was a couple.

The reason Russia isn't going to come to the table is because it has nothing to gain by coming to the table.  Iran isn't saying anything negative about Russia.  Russia using that situation to strengthen itself just like the pirates in the Gulf of Arden.  CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHEN A RUSSIA VESSEL GOT HIJACKED??????  Please!  I want to say that I'm misinformed.  I think even a Chinese vessel got Hijacked but I may be wrong.

No he is not doing his best.  He is doing his worst to make sure it comes about.  He is driven by a utopian ideology that has no basis in reality.  And when shown that his way is the wrong way, instead of correcting the deficiency, he doubles down.  It is no coincidence that the despots of the world have been emboldened by his election.  They see a spiny mealy mouth jelly fish that is a paper tiger. 

He loves to talk the talk, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he is incapable of walking the walk.

Can you tell me, seriously, what kind of action taken would have convinced you that Obama is dealing with the Iranian problem? What is your benchmark for what you'd consider a proper action?

Because if what you consider a proper action is something that is simply politically/economically undesirable for everybody (ex: military strike), I am going to call you of bad faith. Asking your president to start another economical and energetic crisis just to prove a point is not being reasonable about the situation, but just wanting him to see coming down crashing regardless of the circumstances.

Ostracize? How do you Ostracize a country? You refuse to do trade with it? You refuse to talk to it?

You know, technically, not talking to Iran would have the exact same effect that right now. It would allow them to gain time without loosing any ground, as their regular trade partners will still be talking to them anyway.

Waitwaitwaitwait. He is trying to be their friend? How do you figure? By calling for "Crippling sanctions"? For calling for softer sanctions when he realised that Russia and China won't follow him on that?

Is that how you make a friend? How exactly has Obama acted in a friendly way toward Iran?

Well, pry tell me, what do you call his negociation rounds? I mean, he did went to many countries trying to convince Iran's partners to enforce sanctions. There is a limit on what you can do.

How can you do that if Russia and China won't even join you in the ostracizing? I mean, what is the point of sanctions, ostracize that are violated by Iran's main trade partners anyway?

There is little that can be done by diplomacy. There disaster that can be done by military strikes. That's the problem Obama is facing. Obama hasn't really made any more headways in the problem than Bush.

So you are effectively comparind 1 year of mandate to all the other presidencies? I don't buy your criticism. The guy has tried to build sanctions against Iran. He is keeping, even reinforcing most of the military deals done with Poland to oppose Russia, but Russia still got a free hand in the region. It's a problem that has started under Bush and won't take a few months to resolve.

The USA are about as influencial world-wide as they were at the end of the Bush era. There haven't been new wildfires erupting because you changed president.

You know, I just looked up to get some information on Reagan's first year in office, and I can hardly find anything more than lip service there too. However, he put into motions many elements that only became evident in his latter years in office.

Your view of reality is... questionnable..

He met with Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, U.K., France, Germany, Israel, Turkey and quite a few other less influential countries. He managed to get compromises out of some, not so much out of others.

Yet, ostracizing won't do anything to stop Iran from getting nukes, which is the initial beef you peoples seemed to have about Obama. There is just no easy options on the table for your nation about it.

Wait.

It has been proven that Iran was ready to release the hostages before Reagan take office, but the Republicans wanted to use it as a publicity stunt.

Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with the liberation. The hostages were actually held longer because of his P.R. team.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, he took office in Jan 1981. Before that, during the campaign, he made it clear he was not going to take any crap off the Iranians. So kindly explain how he managed to work that out with the Ayatollah? (feel free to show your proof, though) Some like something one might read in a Jimmy Carter apologist's article. If president elects are so potent, why didn't the Taliban surrender when Obama on his inauguration?

Not that, just a man that would do what he said would. He didn't campaign on "no-precondition talks" with the Ayatollah (sound familiar yet?). The Iranians must have believed that too, why do any favors for the next administration of the Great Satan? Something you can't seem to explain away with your attempt at sarcasm.

I will give you an out, just say you saw it on Canadian TV, or MSNBC.

Uh, no.  That was"alleged" (and where the democrats coined the phrase that it was not the evidence that mattered, but the seriousness of the charges), but there was never any evidence to support it.  In other words, the democrats lied.

But you are partially right.  Once Reagan won, the Iranians backed down in a hurry!  I have said their leaders were crazy, ut I have never said they were stupid.

Actually, I have been good about keeping my tongue with Obama for the first year.  I did not vote for him, and for the most part he has done exactly what I expected he would do (I was not blinded by his teleprompter).  But I have never seen him as a smart man (not more than an ordinary politician), but I had hoped he was at least an honest man.

When I say that Obama has done worse than I expected, I am actually not talking about his policies, but his integrity.  The amount of lies and deceits the man has perpertrated since coming into office is worse than any newly elected president.  SHould he have the opportunity, he will make Nixon look like a saint.  And that is why he gets no quarter from me. 

I am not a nay sayer, but then I am very critical of thugs.  Obama has proven himself to be just a common ordinary thug (the first president to publically pick fights with major media outlets and individuals - that is beneath the office) and bully.  And for that he gets no respect from me.

But then I do have the luxury of not being in politics, so I do not have to be politically correct.  As for his lak of compromise, that was his choice.  He had the majorities and never sought to compromise.  It is not my attitude that hurt him.  It was his own arrogance and bullying that did.

Funny how you claim that I cannot claim to understand american mentality, yet you seem to be able to read the Iranian's mind. Both in the past and right now. "Obama is not respected by the Iranians, North Korea". Pry tell me how I can acquire such mind-reading skill, so I could apply it on the USA.