Iran: A Bridge too Far?

[Drakonix]

x = 5 cm

[RDixon]

an elephant in the way

[albed]

Originally Posted by Drakonix

x = 5 cm

Don't do his homework for him. He'll never learn.

[Drakonix]

I'll only help this one more time.

The presence of the elephant does not effect the physics experiment.

The elephant is depicted standing and facing away from the approach of the object, and would not see it coming and therefor would not react to it.

The ramp is stated to be frictionless and therefor the object going down it will make no noise to alert the elephant.

The presence of other obstructions such as an accumulation of elephant feces is not indicated.

The object will approach the elephant, pass between its hind legs, continue under the elephant and pass between its front legs and continue toward the target spring.

Other observations:

The ramp is stated to be frictionless, but the experiment would have to be conducted in a perfect vacuum in order to eliminate friction between the object and the atmosphere. The size and shape of the object would also have an effect on friction (drag). As such, friction from the atmosphere upon the object is presumed eliminated from the experiment.

Question 2b is a trick question.

It’s interesting how physics teachers, who are trying to teach students about real world science must use extra-scientific explanations such as “frictionless surfaces” in order to simplify the problem.

[RDixon]

So, the elephant is trying to obstruct the solution, but is inconsequential to it.

[theknife]

this can only be a positive development:

Bush relents and invites Iran and Syria to Iraq talks
US President George W Bush has finally caved in to demands to involve Iraq's neighbours Iran and Syria in talks about the strife-torn country's future.

After months of resisting calls to convene a regional security conference, the White House has given the go-ahead for the two countries it blames for much of the insurgency to take part in talks.

The Iranian and Syrian governments have agreed to attend the meeting in Baghdad on March 10 which will also involve senior representatives from the five permanent UN Security Council members - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=322472007

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

this can only be a positive development

I agree, and it's about time. Maybe it took this long to soften up Iran's economy enough to make them willing to compromise, or maybe Bush was just a stubborn ass. Either way I expect this will improve our relations with their nation, perhaps permanently.

[theknife]

it's ironic that the standard US mantra re Syria & Iran is always "all options are on the table" - a phrase that is designed to raise the ominous specter of every dreadful weapon we have, but precludes good old-fashioned diplomacy.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

this can only be a positive development:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=322472007

The only thing the USA should be doing on the negotiating table is listening to them, keeping tabs on them and secretly preparing to topple the regime. Because that`s exactly what they`re doing.

[multi]

Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.

However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

More..