Obama: Iran Not a Threat

[Brainster]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ew5qP2oPdtQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ew5qP2oPdtQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

As Jennifer Rubin notes (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/6801), this should be a final exam in international relations; how many mistakes and fallacies can you spot in this little clip?

Reagan negotiated with the Soviets and Nixon with the Chinese because they were too big to ignore (and China was seen as a counterbalance to the Soviets). Iran may not be a real threat to the US, but then, neither is Al Qaeda. Will Obama negotiate with Osama? And is Iran perhaps a threat to other countries in the region beginning with I, like Iraq and Israel?

Remember, this is the guy who thinks he doesn't need any help with foreign policy.

[boloboffin]

Barack Obama (http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_counters_mccain_on_appea.html):

I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.

Wow, Brainster. Propagandize much?

[Just thinking]

Personally, I think Iran is a very real threat to the Middle East, and in turn the USA. If I recall, there are some religious leaders (leader) that wants to see the destruction of Israel before he dies, and he's not doing too well. Anyway, my point is that, unlike the USSR, these folks don't care if after they hit us (or Israel) that we blow them to Kingdom Come. The Russians value a continued existence here on Earth ... I'm not so sure about these guys; and that makes them a greater threat in some respects.

[varwoche]

The thread title is so misleading that it borders on a lie.

What he actually said: They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. Which of course is true.

[moon1969]

It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA? USA hates Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? So why did Iran close all offices of Hezb-e-Islami on February 10, 2002? Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981? Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East. Didn"t McCain sign bomb bomb Iran? McCain can"t fund a war with Iran because the USA has no money plus McCain would have to bring back the draft.

[Just thinking]

What he actually said: Which of course is true.

There I would disagree. Sure, they don't pose the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but they seem to pose a much greater chance of doing something very serious.

[boloboffin]

Just thinking: Be sure to include my direct quote of Obama into your calculations.

[Just thinking]

It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA?

A nuclear hit on Israel would result in a counter strike from the USA. Take it from there.

Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981? Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East. Didn"t McCain sign bomb bomb Iran? McCain can"t fund a war with Iran because the USA has no money plus McCain would have to bring back the draft.

This isn't like Saddam in that the Israeli military may not be up to the task. Too big a campaign. The US wouldn't invade, they'd bomb --- and make it count. And you're right ... anti-American sentiment would soar ... hence the greater threat now.

[Just thinking]

Just thinking: Be sure to include my direct quote of Obama into your calculations.


Of course, but one line out of context is meaningless. From what I hear, I'm not so sure he realizes the threat as being in some ways much greater.

[boloboffin]

That's why I provided a link to his comments quoted more fully -- so that you might find the context of his arguments. As soon as I can locate a full transcript, I'll provide that as well.

One line out of context might be meaningless, but compared to the outright lie in the OP title, it's a breath of fresh air.

[Tricky]

The thread title is so misleading that it borders on a lie.

What he actually said: They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. Which of course is true.
Ah, the untold benefits of selective editing. My favorite is from Exodus.
"Thou shalt ... commit adultry."

[Just thinking]

One line out of context might be meaningless, but compared to the outright lie in the OP title, it's a breath of fresh air.

OK ... but when you have an enemy that doesn't care if they die, in whole or in part, just what can you negotiate?

[BPSCG]

Here's a terrorist Barack Obama can negotiate with.

"You can trust me, Madame Speaker; I promise I'm not building a nuclear reactor with the North Koreans..."

[Just thinking]

Stupid double post.

[boloboffin]

In 2003, everything was on the table. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html)

When the current administration has just spent eight years convincing the Iranians that negotiation would get them nothing at all, a little sitdown from a more rational mind seems in order to me.

[Just thinking]

So what do we do? ... go back in time to 2003? We have to deal with the situation as it stands in 2008. Like the article said, it was believed the Iranian government was in serious trouble. It's a great exercise in 20/20 hindsight ... but beyond that? Also, do you honestly believe everything it said about Iran's position on Israel?

[Tricky]

Of course, but one line out of context is meaningless. From what I hear, I'm not so sure he realizes the threat as being in some ways much greater.
Greater than the possible extinction of the human race through nuclear annihilation? Hmm... I'm not sure how. Iran is nowhere near MAD levels of nukes.

[boloboffin]

I thought the goalposts were...

OK. What we do at this point is convince the Iranians that we are negotiating in good faith. Convince EVERYONE that we are negotiating in good faith, for that matter. That would be a danged fine first step. At the very least, that would be one party at the table doing so.

The article said two things about Iran's position on Israel. The document they had delivered to Washington said that they were willing to discuss accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution. A Iranian analyst also thinks that Iran was ready to soften its stance on Israel to something approximating the Malaysian stance.

I'd definitely accept the first as accurate. The second -- well, he'd probably know better than I. I don't see why they wouldn't be ready to go there eventually. Not tomorrow, of course. But they could move in that direction. As Thomas P.M. Barnett says, connectivity is so much more effective a force to motivate ruleset adherence. Iran has much more to gain from connectivity than this stance they have now. A society capable of building a nuclear weapon is intelligent enough to understand this.

[kallsop]

It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.

[boloboffin]

It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.

Obama is changing the public face of the race from a Democratic primary to a US general election. This will help him extraordinarily in the Democratic primary.

The dexterous speed with which the right wing blogs gleefully distorted and lied about what he said is the real kneejerk mistake here. "Obama said Iran wasn't a threat? Roll the tape!"

Please, FSM, please keep the mighty right wing Wurlitzer so out of tune.

[Brainster]

Well, excuuuuuuusssssse me! The title is so misleading, because what Obama said is "They don't pose a serious threat to us..." Is the gripe that I didn't include the word "serious"? This is kind of like that Michelle Obama quote where we're supposed to always mention that what she said was that first the first time in her adult life she was "really" proud of her country, which is not the same thing as saying that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country?

Granted, Boloboffin notes that Obama has changed his mind, and this is to the good. But compare the two statements:

1. "They don't pose a serious threat to us..."

2. "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

I'm having some difficulty reconciling those two statements. And of course then there are the folks here who think that Obama was right the first time.

[boloboffin]

Changed his mind??? That's the same speech, Brainster!

What's the ellipse for? What's the ellipse trimming out? Could it be an instructive example of a more serious threat than Iran? Why, yes, I believe so.

"FEMA: WTC 7 Is Implosion"

[Brainster]

Changed his mind??? That's the same speech, Brainster!

What's the ellipse for? What's the ellipse trimming out? Could it be an instructive example of a more serious threat than Iran? Why, yes, I believe so.

"FEMA: WTC 7 Is Implosion"

Okay, now I get why you're upset; you're mistaken. The YouTube clip is from Obama speaking in Portland yesterday. The speech you quote is from a Billings Montana speech today. Obama is attempting a rowback.

The ellipse? Okay, let's see you reconcile both statements in full:

"They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

They're not a serious threat to us like the Soviet Union. But they are a grave threat. Because a grave threat is not a serious threat.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.

Funny, everyone I talk to comes to the opposite conclusion:

1. It puts him against McCain and Bush, which sends the message he wants, that McCain would be Bush's third term.

2. Responding is the proper response, unlike Kerry who only got around to defending himself five months later.

3. It puts him on the same level as McCain and Bush, i.e. him being a presumptive nominee and nicely leaves Hillary out of the picture.

[BPSCG]

What's the ellipse for? What's the ellipse trimming out?

The ellipse? Okay, let's see you reconcile both statements in full:Ellipse: a plane curve such that the sums of the distances of each point in its periphery from two fixed points, the foci, are equal. It is a conic section formed by the intersection of a right circular cone by a plane that cuts the axis and the surface of the cone.


Ellipsis: Printing. a mark or marks as ——, …, or * * *, to indicate an omission or suppression of letters or words.

Carry on.

[Cleon]

"They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

They're not a serious threat to us like the Soviet Union. But they are a grave threat. Because a grave threat is not a serious threat.

Ah, so that's the issue. You're trying to word-parse some extra meaning out of this.

There's only one real way to take issue with Obama's statements: if you think that Iran is just as much of a threat today as the USSR was then.

And let's be honest - nobody really thinks that. It's a silly idea. Even neglecting the nuclear arsenal, just a conventional war with the Soviets would've made both previous World Wars pale in comparison. Compared to the USSR, Iran ain't squat.

Obama is, at the end of the day, correct. He sees Iran as a threat, but not as much as the USSR was. Well, duh.

You're looking for some excuse to criticize Obama, so you've manufactured this "serious vs. grave" conundrum. (Which is just as insipid as Hillary's similarly-manufactured BS about "reject" vs. "condemn.")

In short...You have no real point here. This is just fighting for the sake of fighting. This thread represents the worst of the American political scene.

[David Wong]

It's actually sad what politics does to Brainster. I don't think he would participate in this kind of outright deceit in any other area of life and be able to look at himself in the mirror.

He knows the thread title is a lie. Yet he excuses this lie because... what? It's in service to a larger cause? That he doesn't think we'll see what a danger Obama is to America if he tells the truth, so he has to exaggerate to the point that it becomes an outright lie to accomplish the goal?

When end can justify that means, Brainster?

[Texas]

Ah, so that's the issue. You're trying to word-parse some extra meaning out of this.

There's only one real
You're looking for some excuse to criticize Obama, so you've manufactured this "serious vs. grave" conundrum. (Which is just as insipid as Hillary's similarly-manufactured BS about "reject" vs. "condemn.")

In short...You have no real point here. This is just fighting for the sake of fighting. This thread represents the worst of the American political scene. Serious question for you. What do you believe Obama will do to convince Iran to stop its continued sponsorship of terrorists, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons?

[Cleon]

Serious question for you. What do you believe Obama will do to convince Iran to stop its continued sponsorship of terrorists, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons?

I doubt his approach to Iran will be much different than GWB's. Some tough talk, but otherwise nothing significant.

[Texas]

I doubt his approach to Iran will be much different than GWB's. Some tough talk, but otherwise nothing significant.
He is not a tough talking kind of guy. That is supposed to be his strongest selling point. We have already heard Iran's demands, they have been consistent for 40 years. It boils down to all United States involvement in the Middle East to be limited to buying its oil, cutting Israel loose and now for us to leave Iraq. Obama has already promised that we will meet the 3rd demand so if he is going to base US foreign policy on his self described "surge of diplomacy", will withdrawing completely from the region and forcing Israel to come to terms with Hamas and Fatah be enough, IYO, for Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the nation of Syria plus, after 60 years, recognition of Israel's right to exist?

[Brainster]

It's actually sad what politics does to Brainster. I don't think he would participate in this kind of outright deceit in any other area of life and be able to look at himself in the mirror.

He knows the thread title is a lie. Yet he excuses this lie because... what? It's in service to a larger cause? That he doesn't think we'll see what a danger Obama is to America if he tells the truth, so he has to exaggerate to the point that it becomes an outright lie to accomplish the goal?

When end can justify that means, Brainster?

Obama knows he made a mistake, hence the rowback today. I don't mind that he made a gaffe while speaking and now acknowledges that implicitly by revising and extending his remarks.

On the other hand, I do mind the claim that I lied. Obama said in so many words yesterday that Iraq was not a serious threat. If he had said it was not "as serious a threat as the Soviet Union", I would concede Cleon's argument.

And many, many people have read it the way I did, which is why the story has been at the top of Memeorandum (http://www.memeorandum.com) all day.

Jennifer Rubin (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/6801):

Obama apparently believes that Iran and other rogues states (he lists Iran, Cuba and Venezuela) “don’t pose a serious threat to the U.S.”

Rick Moran (http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1082):

Yesterday in front of 75,000 adoring fans, Obama really let his inner liberal take over and made one of the most outrageously stupid comments of the campaign to date. If the GOP were smart, they would take this comment and run it from now until November.

Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/0e67f6fe-ea1a-4088-9bfd-4ad1d5863840):

Obama expects people to take his support for Israel's security seriously, and then declares that Iran isn't a serious threat?

Jim Geraghty (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTRiYmY1ZWMxODZkZjFlYTk3NDRiMDZmN2MzY2YxMjc=) takes on the comparison to the Soviets:

Again, in an era of asymmetrical warfare, a group's budget and spending do not necessarily reflect the scope or danger of the threat. The 9/11 Commission report stated the attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan; the short-term costs alone to the U.S. from the attacks are estimated at $27.2 billion.

Indeed, the Soviets may have been less of a threat because mutually assured destruction kept them in check, while the Iranian government, run by a madman, may not care if they die; their 72 virgins await.

[boloboffin]

I see. It isn't the same speech. I apologize for that mix-up.

Obama is clearly minimizing the threat Iran poses with regards to the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean the threat is a grave one or a serious one. It's just not the serious threat the Soviet Union posed and we talked to them.

"Van Romero: Towers Controlled Demolition"

"Silverstein: I Told FDNY To Destroy Building 7"

Explain why these headlines are not exactly the same error as yours, Brainster.

[Texas]

Indeed, the Soviets may have been less of a threat because mutually assured destruction kept them in check, while the Iranian government, run by a madman, may not care if they die; their 72 virgins await.

Not to mention the return of the 12th Imam. That is what I find the most ironic about the attitude of the left today. It is often stated that Iran, even with nuclear weapons, is no threat to anyone because of "mutually assured destruction". I was already an adult during the height of the Cold War and the left of that time were demanding unilateral disarmament decrying MAD as planetary suicide.

[Puppycow]

OMG, the meaning of a sentence, like, totally changes when you omit certain words! :rolleyes:

[Brainster]

I see. It isn't the same speech. I apologize for that mix-up.

Obama is clearly minimizing the threat Iran poses with regards to the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean the threat is a grave one or a serious one. It's just not the serious threat the Soviet Union posed and we talked to them.

"Van Romero: Towers Controlled Demolition"

"Silverstein: I Told FDNY To Destroy Building 7"

Explain why these headlines are not exactly the same error as yours, Brainster.

I think you mean "minimizing the threat Iran poses compared to the Soviet Union", not "poses with regards to the Soviet Union"?

Like I said, given that Obama has rowed back on this I just look at it as a mistake. I'd have to look back and see what Obama has said in the past about the threat from Iran. Maybe he meant to say "as serious a threat as the Soviet Union", in which case at least it's arguable.

But I disagree about the face-to-face negotiations being comparable to such talks with the Soviet Union or Red China. That's silly. You treat hostile equals as equals. Hostile unequals don't get to meet with the president.

As for the comparative headlines they completely misrepresent what the person said and aren't close to being quotes. Obama said Iran wasn't a serious threat, so the OP title is not false. I can see how Democrats, with their confirmation bias might see it as "unfair" and I can see how a Republican like myself with my own confirmation bias might not see it the same way. The idea that it's some dastardly lie, is, quite frankly, Obamania writ large.

Obama clearly knows he misspoke, hence the new phrasing today. If I had known about that new speech I probably would not have made a big deal out of posting this. Like I said, it was at the top of Memeorandum all day, so obviously it was a hot topic.

[boloboffin]

Van Romero said that the collapses looked like controlled demolitions and he even had a little scenario worked out. All I did was eliminate two words "looked like". Since he had a scenario, that little omission hardly misrepresents what he said originally at all. He's retracted since, of course. The evidence was overwhelming.

The FEMA quote: They did say that certain elements suggested implosion, and that's true. An internal failure leading to a global collapse is an implosion whether it's a building or a star. It doesn't imply or suggest that explosives were involved, but stated so baldly, it can.

The Silverstein one is, of course, a severe misrepresentation in that it doesn't even use his words. While your headline isn't a serious misquote in that regard, it is much more serious in its misrepresentation because the stakes are that much higher.

Barack Obama qualified that statement in the very sentence he used it in. By clipping out the caveat, you and the blog you quoted from misrepresented what Barack said in a very material way.

"They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

[...]

If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world."

Now your blogs and you can pretend Barack said that Iran wasn't a threat. You can pretend that you wouldn't have been AS upset if Barack had said "AS serious a threat," because the comparison would have been explicit, but you know? He did make the comparison explicit.

"...in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." That is the comparison. How serious was the threat the Soviet Union posed? Do you think the threat Iran poses is anywhere near that level? Of course you don't. John McCain must pretend that Iran is an existential threat to the U.S., but it's not. Things don't have to be existential threats to be grave. And threats can still be serious without being the most serious threat of all time, bar none.

And please don't tell me you think Ahmedinejad runs much of anything in that country. Yes, he has some power. What many people on my side of the aisle pretend Bush-Cheney to be, Khamenei-Ahmedinejad actually is.

I appreciate all the minor editing points.

[Brainster]

Van Romero said that the collapses looked like controlled demolitions and he even had a little scenario worked out. All I did was eliminate two words "looked like". Since he had a scenario, that little omission hardly misrepresents what he said originally at all. He's retracted since, of course. The evidence was overwhelming.

Okay, so the Van Romero headline is very comparable; basically what the guy said even though he retracted it quite sensibly afterwards. I agree, the elements of comparability here are pretty good.

The FEMA quote: They did say that certain elements suggested implosion, and that's true. An internal failure leading to a global collapse is an implosion whether it's a building or a star. It doesn't imply or suggest that explosives were involved, but stated so baldly, it can.

I can only assume that this is some quote you intended to put in your post but did not?

The Silverstein one is, of course, a severe misrepresentation in that it doesn't even use his words. While your headline isn't a serious misquote in that regard, it is much more serious in its misrepresentation because the stakes are that much higher.

Oh, horrors, Barack might lose the JREF vote?

Barack Obama qualified that statement in the very sentence he used it in. By clipping out the caveat, you and the blog you quoted from misrepresented what Barack said in a very material way.

He clearly stated that Iran was not a serious threat. He has gone back and stated now that it's a grave threat. So he recognizes he was wrong. Why can't you just do the same?

Now your blogs and you can pretend Barack said that Iran wasn't a threat.

He did. This is getting a little silly here.

You can pretend that you wouldn't have been AS upset if Barack had said "AS serious a threat," because the comparison would have been explicit, but you know? He did make the comparison explicit.

I'm not pretending anything. Please address my arguments without implying my statements are not genuine. I assume you really think what you say, otherwise I would not bother responding.

"...in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." That is the comparison. How serious was the threat the Soviet Union posed? Do you think the threat Iran poses is anywhere near that level? Of course you don't. John McCain must pretend that Iran is an existential threat to the U.S., but it's not. Things don't have to be existential threats to be grave. And threats can still be serious without being the most serious threat of all time, bar none.

That is a reasonable argument; what a pity it's not the argument that Obama was making Sunday night. Yesterday he said "not a serious threat", today he said "a grave threat". Clearly he knows he screwed up. As I've said several times, I'm not so concerned now that he's clarified his statement. But I will not let charges that I lied in the title or anywhere here stand unrefuted. You and David Wong owe me an apology.

[Texas]

And please don't tell me you think Ahmedinejad runs much of anything in that country. Yes, he has some power. What many people on my side of the aisle pretend Bush-Cheney to be, Khamenei-Ahmedinejad actually is.

I appreciate all the minor editing points.

From Obama's website:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Do you see any potential problem(s) with his position as stated above?

[Dr Adequate]

Shock horror, Obama tells exact truth, Republicans spin it.

Damn, this could finish him. Oh wait, it didn't the last zillion times.

No, Iran doesn't pose the same serious threat to the US, nor to the rest of the free world, as the USSR did.

Duh.

[Texas]

Shock horror, Obama tells exact truth, Republicans spin it.

Damn, this could finish him. Oh wait, it didn't the last zillion times.

No, Iran doesn't pose the same serious threat to the US, nor to the rest of the free world, as the USSR did.

Duh.

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR. THe message never changes.

[Dr Adequate]

"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

They're not a serious threat to us like the Soviet Union. But they are a grave threat. Because a grave threat is not a serious threat.Because a grave threat (to what?) is not as serious a threat as having nuclear missiles ready to fire at all your major cities. Which they did. For ****'s sake, they could have obliterated much of America with a phone call.

And yet you negotiated with them.

In retrospect, that seems to have been quite a good idea.

[Dr Adequate]

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR. Well, that was an odd thing to say as a response to my post. Did you bother to read it at any point?

[Texas]

Well, that was an odd thing to say as a response to my post. Did you bother to read it at any point?

No, Iran doesn't pose the same serious threat to the US, nor to the rest of the free world, as the USSR did.



No, your post implied that it was common knowledge in the world that the USSR was a real danger to the United States and the Western European countries. My post just challenged that implication when it came to the political left during the Cold War. I assume you remember the European lefts reaction to the deployment of the Trident Missiles in Europe? To SDI? The British "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament" the organisation that demanded unilateral disarmament. The one that pioneered the famous peace sign? My point that when it comes to the left, the message is nothing if not consistent.

[Dr Adequate]

No, your post implied that it was common knowledge in the world that the USSR was a real danger to the United States and the Western European countries ... My point that when it comes to the left, the message is nothing if not consistent. Why, thank you. Speaking as one of "the left" my "message" has indeed been entirely consistent, and I did think that the power of the USSR to annihilate me and everyone and everything I care for was a "real danger".

If, however, "the right" would now like to suggest that the USSR was a less serious threat to us then than Iran is at present, merely in order to make a partisan criticicism of one clause in one speech made by one non-Republican, then I am afraid that I cannot return the compliment, because for some reason the word "consistent" does not spring to mind when I wish to describe such behavior. The word "truthful", or the phrase "not completely frickin' stupid" would not be first to my lips either.

[boloboffin]

Wow. He did not state that Iran was not a serious threat. He very clearly was comparing it to the kind of threat the Soviet Union was.

Just wow.

[T.A.M.]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ew5qP2oPdtQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ew5qP2oPdtQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

As Jennifer Rubin notes (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/6801), this should be a final exam in international relations; how many mistakes and fallacies can you spot in this little clip?

Reagan negotiated with the Soviets and Nixon with the Chinese because they were too big to ignore (and China was seen as a counterbalance to the Soviets). Iran may not be a real threat to the US, but then, neither is Al Qaeda. Will Obama negotiate with Osama? And is Iran perhaps a threat to other countries in the region beginning with I, like Iraq and Israel?

Remember, this is the guy who thinks he doesn't need any help with foreign policy.

There are many reasons to negotiate, to "talk" with OTHER COUNTRIES.

Last I checked, Al-Qaeda was not a sovereign nation...Iran is.

YEs other presidents negotiated with Bigger, much more dangerous enemies. Obama may have to negotiate with Russia and China himself. However, he is right. In terms of overall danger, in terms of the SIZE of the danger, Iran is small compared to the other two.

Reading anything more into his comments is simple RIGHT WING FEAR MONGERING and MISREPRESENTATION.

TAM:)

[ZenFountain]

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR. THe message never changes.

How so? 30 years ago (chronologically, not figuratively) we were in a period of stagflation and oil shock thanks to terrible economic mismanagement during the Vietnam war and foreign policy blunders in the Middle East. It was Nixon that flew to China and Nixon that initiated détente with the Soviets. Big surprise that when the economy recovered from the shock of a floating currency and oil prices plummeted, we went strait back to a cowboy President that racked up massive deficits with big guns and tough talk.

[kallsop]

I'm not sure what the point was for Obama to say that Iran is not as big of a threat as the USSR once was. He doesn't need to be blundering through these issues and his campaign inexperience is showing. Slow down and think it through with your minders before you speak without a teleprompter.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not sure what the point was for Obama to say that Iran is not as big of a threat as the USSR once was. Then read his speech through with more attention and get an adult to help you with the long words that make your brain all hurty.

He doesn't need to be blundering through these issues and his campaign inexperience is showing. Slow down and think it through with your minders before you speak without a teleprompter. You seem to think that telling the truth is wrong in some way.

Well, at least this shows a certain amount of consistency on your part.

[Tricky]

I'm not sure what the point was for Obama to say that Iran is not as big of a threat as the USSR once was. He doesn't need to be blundering through these issues and his campaign inexperience is showing. Slow down and think it through with your minders before you speak without a teleprompter.
It shows me that he has a clear mind for perspective which lets him show that he understands foreign policy even without a teleprompter. True, he doesn't have much experience with fearmongering, which is always useful during a campaign. Maybe that will come with time, but I kinda like this new approach of rational examination. It's refreshing.

To the Republicans though, it seems as if their scary issues are:


Obama will (gasp) TALK to our enemies.
Obama (horrors) knows the difference between a country with an extensive nuclear arsenal and effective delivery system versus a country with maybe one nuke and no delivery system.What will they try to scare us with next?

[WildCat]

Maybe Obama will send a letter to the Iranian mullahs politely asking them not meddle in the affairs of their neighbors. After all, this has worked wonders before!

Warning, may be illegal to view in parts of Europe:
-0G5aYiLfVM

[boloboffin]

And thus the thread is Godwinized.

[WildCat]

And thus the thread is Godwinized.
I know, we musn't consider the potential ramifications of being taken for fools by our enemies. :rolleyes:

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it... unless you're convinced you're so much smarter than those people in the past apparently.

[Just thinking]

Greater than the possible extinction of the human race through nuclear annihilation? Hmm... I'm not sure how. Iran is nowhere near MAD levels of nukes.

Because the Russians did not want to die as a result of their launching missiles at us (USA). Some of these nuts in Iran want to die ... after of course eliminating Israel. It gets them a front row seat next to Allah. I don't know how one can overcome that through talks, and Obama certainly hasn't explained how he'd do it either. Didn't he hear the mouthpiece for Iran when he came over here and spoke at a University? Or is he again going to use the Reverend Wright excuse?

[Just thinking]

Another DP ... sorry. If only this forum would respond in one's lifetime ... ;)

[Brainster]

I know that people don't want to believe that Obama says dumb things, to the point where they will ignore what he actually said. Abe Greenwald has a classic example (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/6961) of this form of denialism:

Here’s Gary Hart:

I don’t think Barack Obama or any other president is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that . . . What you do is send diplomats and negotiators to explore areas of mutual interest. And if it does seem profitable, then you go to the heads of state.

Here’s Joe Biden:

What we’re talking about here is that he has repeatedly since then said he would not negotiate unconditionally, meaning him sitting down, alone, right off the bat with these leaders.

Here’s Barack Obama’s website:

Barack Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Since I did not receive an apology, David Wong is now in my ignore list. Boloboffin's work in the CT subforum is too valuable to miss, but I will no longer be replying to him in the presidential elections subforum.

[varwoche]

Well, excuuuuuuusssssse me! The title is so misleading, because what Obama said is "They don't pose a serious threat to us..." Is the gripe that I didn't include the word "serious"? No, it's the fact that what comes after the ellipsis puts the words in an entirely different light. (duh!)

[Darth Rotor]

A nuclear hit on Israel would result in a counter strike from the USA. Take it from there.
Don't think so, though a strike from Israel is likely. I am pretty sure they are included in some of the early warning network that detects nuclear ballistic launches. ( I can't confirm, don't know for certain, base it on use of Patriot and Arrow as BMD units and how cueing for that system works.) So, if missiles fly toward Israel, theirs would be on the way to Teheran/Iran before hitting Israel. I doubt they'd listen to any American President who tried to stop them from a counter in the few minutes they'd have to make a decision.
This isn't like Saddam in that the Israeli military may not be up to the task. Too big a campaign. The US wouldn't invade, they'd bomb --- and make it count. And you're right ... anti-American sentiment would soar ... hence the greater threat now.
Still trying to fathom why bombing Iran advances US interests in the Persian Gulf. Care to share?

DR

[Just thinking]

Don't think so, though a strike from Israel is likely. I am pretty sure they are included in some of the early warning network that detects nuclear ballistic launches. ( I can't confirm, don't know for certain, base it on use of Patriot and Arrow as BMD units and how cueing for that system works.) So, if missiles fly toward Israel, theirs would be on the way to Teheran/Iran before hitting Israel. I doubt they'd listen to any American President who tried to stop them from a counter in the few minutes they'd have to make a decision.

I doubt that too. In fact, I don't think we'd try to stop it. But they might not be up to the task of taking out all of Iran's military and nuclear arsenal, which includes refining capacity. I think we'd step up to the plate if it became serious enough --- and nuclear launches against Israel would be serious.

Still trying to fathom why bombing Iran advances US interests in the Persian Gulf. Care to share?

DR

Perhaps you misunderstood. I said it would elevate anti-American sentiment. And it's not that we want to bomb Iran, they may give us no choice. Nuclear arms in the hands of some of these guys is unacceptable.

[Darth Rotor]

And it's not that we want to bomb Iran, they may give us no choice. Nuclear arms in the hands of some of these guys is unacceptable.
OK, someone has to, so I'll say it:

So the nuclear strike on North Korea is a few days away? :D Ya see, it's unacceptable that they have nukes.

I don't agree with the use of term "unacceptable" in this context. Iran getting nukes simply makes the security situation more difficult, just as India and Pakistan having nukes makes the security situation more difficult.

DR

[Pookster]

I know that people don't want to believe that Obama says dumb things, to the point where they will ignore what he actually said. Abe Greenwald has a classic example (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/6961) of this form of denialism:

Since I did not receive an apology, David Wong is now in my ignore list. Boloboffin's work in the CT subforum is too valuable to miss, but I will no longer be replying to him in the presidential elections subforum.

I think I'm missing something in all of this. The thread title says ...

"Obama: Iran Not a Threat"

Where has he stated this specifically? Am I just overlooking something here? I've seen quotes where he says Iran is not as serious a threat as the Soviet Union, but that seems to at least confirm he sees Iran as a threat. Does Iran have to be a a serious threat in order to be a threat in your view? How do you substantiate the title of the thread without putting words in (or omitting them out of) Obama's mouth? If there is a link to him saying specifically that Iran isn't a threat, then, please, point it out to me. Help a girl out, won't ya? Thanks.

[boloboffin]

I just found out that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons in 2005 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/mehr080905.html). Yes, there have religious and political leaders this cynical before. However, someone capable of this kind of bluff isn't a madman looking for his 72 virgins either. That fatwa, combined with the recent NIE showing that Iran is not trying to building nuclear weapons, is enough to let me consider that in this Iran is being completely up front.

Brainster, you'll be getting no apology from me except this one in the classical sense. You posted a thread title which was false. When called on it, you quotemined and danced in the fine tradition of people we have argued against together in the Conspiracy Theories forum. You then had the nerve to label me an Obamaniac for daring to point out your lack of clothing. I have admitted to all the errors I made in this thread, one a substantial one. I won't admit to a mistake I didn't make.

[Suddenly]

OK, someone has to, so I'll say it:

So the nuclear strike on North Korea is a few days away? :D Ya see, it's unacceptable that they have nukes.

I don't agree with the use of term "unacceptable" in this context. Iran getting nukes simply makes the security situation more difficult, just as India and Pakistan having nukes makes the security situation more difficult.

DR

Iran is very similar to the USSR post WWII, except on a minor scale. Both have similar motivations behind their aggressive policies in that both are a bit paranoid after suffering massive damage during an invasion. Even Iran's wild threats against Israel can be viewed through a realpolitik lens as an effort to unify the islamic world to avoid the horrific losses Iran suffered when Iraq invaded.

There is a weird irony that we have conservatives who are implicitly downplaying the seriousness of the commie threat and the willingness of the Soviet block to actively battle the west via proxy wars and such. One can only imagine the bricks being excreted were the Iranians to bring Cuba under its influence and use Cubans to help in a civil war in Angola.

The other thing that kills me is McCain, the man who was singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" is accusing Obama of being reckless as to foreign policy....

I'm considering being put in an intentional coma until after the election just so to be sure my brain doesn't explode...

[joobz]

I heard today that a Presidential sit-down with Ahmedinejad would lend legitimacy to his rule, which is reportedly tenuous. My question here is is this a true statement? Would a sit-down strengthen his rule and if so is that a bad thing?

I guess my questions surround the notion that if Ahmedinejad was to lose power, who would replace him? Is that rule likely to be any more favorable towards the US?

And Wildcat, is really your best argument against a sit-down because you are afraid of being laughed at? Or are you claiming that Rosevelt's request to respect national borders in some way caused or helped Hitler to invade those countries?

[Just thinking]

OK, someone has to, so I'll say it:

So the nuclear strike on North Korea is a few days away? :D Ya see, it's unacceptable that they have nukes.

I don't agree with the use of term "unacceptable" in this context.

Iran is very similar to the USSR post WWII, except on a minor scale. Both have similar motivations behind their aggressive policies in that both are a bit paranoid after suffering massive damage during an invasion. Even Iran's wild threats against Israel can be viewed through a realpolitik lens as an effort to unify the islamic world to avoid the horrific losses Iran suffered when Iraq invaded.

Why is it that it seems some here do not see the elephant in the room?

Now, I will say it, since no one else seems to be able to: Religious fundamentalists that are hell bent on doing harm with no regard for their own lives (and/or those of their people) pose a greater threat than the Russians did/do. Yes, for 40 some years we and the Soviets had enough weapons pointed at each other to kill the world many times over. Yet, with all those weapons, and all the tension, just how many hits from them did the US take in all that time? How many buildings in Manhattan did they strike down? How many US Navy ships were hit? How many military buildings/embassies over seas? How much damage was inflicted on the Pentagon? How many innocent civilians here at home were killed?

Big difference when your enemy doesn't care about living till tomorrow.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm considering being put in an intentional coma until after the election just so to be sure my brain doesn't explode...
Why not try the Ted Williams trick, and have your brain frozen? Call it a Zombie Daquari if you like. :D

Iran is very similar to the USSR post WWII, except on a minor scale.
And scale is an important consideration in any threat assessment.
Both have similar motivations behind their aggressive policies in that both are a bit paranoid after suffering massive damage during an invasion.
Iran's massive invasion was when? The Iran Iraq war was mostly waged in a constrained area between the two nations, though plenty of air raids and Theater Ballistic Missiles with conventional heads were fired deep into one another's territory. Not like the penetration of the USSR by the Wehrmacht, at all. Poor analogy, methinks.
Even Iran's wild threats against Israel can be viewed through a realpolitik lens as an effort to unify the islamic world to avoid the horrific losses Iran suffered when Iraq invaded.
Yes, Iran suffered horrific losses when Iraq invaded. I am not quite following the Israel tie-in, given that Iran is considered with suspicion in most Arab capitals. I think your horrific losses example would be better done by comparing the British of WW I. Not invaded, but suffered horrific losses. Similarly in WW II: a lot of dead people, ships sunk, cities bombed, but not invaded.

If I read you correctly, the Iranians are worried about an Israeli attack from the air, not an invasion. Did I get that right?
There is a weird irony that we have conservatives who are implicitly downplaying the seriousness of the commie threat and the willingness of the Soviet block to actively battle the west via proxy wars and such. One can only imagine the bricks being excreted were the Iranians to bring Cuba under its influence and use Cubans to help in a civil war in Angola.
Nitpick: Soviet bloc, not block. :D As to Iran exporting their Islamic revolution, they've been doing that since about 1980, in one form or another, with varying success, see Hezbollah as one such client. If you don't consider some of the foaming at the mouth from even Cheney about attacks on Iran, the War on Terror, state sponsors of terror, and so on, what do you consider a defecation of building material? :confused:
The other thing that kills me is McCain, the man who was singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" is accusing Obama of being reckless as to foreign policy....
Ever heard of a thing called a joke? Likewise the old gaffe by Reagan on a mic he thought was off "In five minutes, we bomb Russia."

Joke.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

I know that people don't want to believe that Obama says dumb things, to the point where they will ignore what he actually said. On the evidence of this thread so far, strike the word "don't".

Abe Greenwald has a classic example (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/6961) of this form of denialism: Well, in order to work out whether that is "denialism", or stating the bleedin' obvious, we shall first have to look at what Obama said, something that you seem singularly reluctant to do, and what he meant, something that I predict that you will find impossible.

But let's try it. When Obama said "without preconditions", did he mean:

(a) That he'd take the first plane to Tehran and see if anyone meets him at the airport?

(b) That he would be willing to talk to Iranian leaders about the points that divide them from the West without asking that they concede some of those points before he'll start negotiating about them?

If (a), then you may have found some classic examples of "denialism". If (b), then you may have supplied one.

[Suddenly]

I heard today that a Presidential sit-down with Ahmedinejad would lend legitimacy to his rule, which is reportedly tenuous. My question here is is this a true statement? Would a sit-down strengthen his rule and if so is that a bad thing?



Ahmedinejad's true position is a puppet of the mullahs.

The Iranian people tend to be more liberal than many would want to believe. If Ahmedinejad were to be replaced, this would be a sign that the mullahs are lightening up. They aren't likely to find a more hard-lined puppet...

The real danger of diplomacy is to the mullahs. They preside over a population that is more liberal than most people want to admit, and their power rests on propaganda fueled distrust and fear of the west. Diplomacy would weaken this, and massive western investment would probably be fatal. Iran still hasn't really recovered from their war as far as infrastructure goes, including their drilling capacity, and this isn't because people there don't like money as much as modernization and wealth is a threat to the mullahs.

Entering into diplomacy with Iran will probably be useless on the surface as the present government is almost by definition incapable of bargaining in good faith. There are deeper strategic factors however.

[Tricky]

Why is it that it seems some here do not see the elephant in the room?
Must be one of those invisible pink elephants.

Now, I will say it, since no one else seems to be able to: Religious fundamentalists that are hell bent on doing harm with no regard for their own lives pose a greater threat than the Russians did/do. Yes, for 40 some years we and the Soviets had enough weapons pointed at each other to kill the world many times over. Yet, with all those weapons, and all the tension, just how many hits from them did the US take in all that time? How many buildings in Manhattan did they strike down? How many US Navy ships were hit? How many military buildings/embassies over seas? How much damage was inflicted on the Pentagon? How many innocent civilians here at home were killed?
No doubt, the Islamics are crazier and less concerned with their own individual well-being. Still, they could not conquer the US. The could not destroy any significant portion of our population. Their very best shot so far was to destroy three buildings and damage a third. Most of the ones who carried out that attack were from Saudi Arabia, one of our allies. If you think that even a multinational terrorist attack is anything like a nuclear war between superpowers with many many H-bombs, then I think you are having some serious problems with scale.

Also, it should be pointed out that not a single attack on the US was committed by the armed forces of an Islamic nation. Certainly I agree that the governments did nod and wink at them, but the first time an Islamic government actually sent soldiers of their army, that would be the end for them. The first time Iran sent a nuke (assuming they have one) would be the last. And they know this. So does North Korea. (Depending on who they nuked. If NK nuked Iraq, we'd probably call it a "measured response".)

Now compare this to a country that has a whole lot of nukes that are ready to fly long distances and that nation invades a country with their soldiers and full military might, just because they have a rumor that they may have some weapons. Sure Iran is crazy and dangerous, but you'd have a hard time convincing many people that they are more crazy than the US when it comes to attacking other countries. And they're sure as hell no where near as dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I hate terrorism and I'd like to stop it, but to pretend it is anything close to the danger of nuclear annihilation is... well... crazy.

Big difference when your enemy doesn't care about living till tomorrow.
But of course, that is not the case. You don't see any of the nations' leaders taking part in suicide attacks. Neither do I see them holding the position that they would gladly wipe themselves off the map if they could also wipe Israel off the map. What I see is them wanting to defeat Israel, not join them in death. Can you point me to a single statement from Iraq or any Islamic nation that suggests that they would end the lives of all their countrymen if they could achieve the end of Israel?

[Brainster]

I think I'm missing something in all of this. The thread title says ...

"Obama: Iran Not a Threat"

Where has he stated this specifically? Am I just overlooking something here? I've seen quotes where he says Iran is not as serious a threat as the Soviet Union, but that seems to at least confirm he sees Iran as a threat. Does Iran have to be a a serious threat in order to be a threat in your view? How do you substantiate the title of the thread without putting words in (or omitting them out of) Obama's mouth? If there is a link to him saying specifically that Iran isn't a threat, then, please, point it out to me. Help a girl out, won't ya? Thanks.

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?

Obama knows he was wrong, hence his comments in Billings the next day about Iran being a "grave threat". Like I said earlier, this is no longer about Obama to me since he's recognized his mistake. It's about people here saying the title of the post is a lie. They are wrong. I am willing to grant that they appear not to realize they are wrong, so I will not accuse them of telling a deliberate falsehood. But they are wrong nonetheless.

[Pookster]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?


Looking at that quote alone without considering any possible context issues that may or may not exist, sure.

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?


Ahhh ... I don't think so. If I understand this correctly, you're trying to say that something has to be a serious threat in order to be a threat, right? So, if I don't have a serious allergy problem with pollen, then I don't have an allergy problem with pollen? Do you not see the problem with your logic? Seriously?

... It's about people here saying the title of the post is a lie. They are wrong. I am willing to grant that they appear not to realize they are wrong, so I will not accuse them of telling a deliberate falsehood. But they are wrong nonetheless.


I wouldn't call it a lie ... if you actually believe that a problem has to be serious in order for it to be a problem. Do you? If you don't, and given how much you're defending this, how else could it be classified but as knowingly spreading a false statement?

[Tricky]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?
Do you think Iran could conquer the US? Yes, they could hurt us. Maybe hurt us badly, but there is no serious threat of being defeated by Iran.

What exactly is it you call a serious threat? People dying? Yes, we've seen that can happen, although the 9-11 deaths would be lost in the automobile fatality records of a single year. Destroying our infrastructure? Somehow I doubt it. They'd have to have a lot more firepower than it appears they have. Breaking our morale? Possibly, though I've noticed that Americans tend to pull together during this sort of thing rather than waving the white flag.

In the end, Iran could cause us severe discomfort, even genuine hardship. It is not to be taken lightly. On the other hand it should not provoke a Chicken Little response that the sky is falling.

It appears that Barak Obama understands this far better than you.

[joobz]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."
which is true.

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?
Depends on your definition of "serious". By context of his speech, he made it clear that former USSR was a serious threat. By that standard, Iran isn't a serious threat. That doesn't mean they aren't a problem. I think the only honest thing to do is to take Obama at his own context.

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?
no, it's not the same thing.
Coming down with the flu isn't serious, but it is a threat.

Obama knows he was wrong, hence his comments in Billings the next day about Iran being a "grave threat". That's a dishonest take of Obama's response. It seems clear that he was responding to the missinterpretations of his words that people have made. It's clear what he said when taken in context. However, McCain and others had jumped down his throat to project a image of ignorance on him. If he ignored those claims, he would have done more harm.


Like I said earlier, this is no longer about Obama to me since he's recognized his mistake. What mistake? The one people have projected onto him?

It's about people here saying the title of the post is a lie. They are wrong. I am willing to grant that they appear not to realize they are wrong, so I will not accuse them of telling a deliberate falsehood. But they are wrong nonetheless.
I don't claim you lied. I do not think you did it maliciously. I think you are wrong, and the evidence supports my position, but I do not hold you in any illregard.

[Brainster]

All right, I will apologize for the title of the thread, which should have read "Obama: Iran Not a Serious Threat". Is that acceptable to everybody?

Of course, I look forward to those saying Obama was right, Iran is not a serious threat to now castigate him for saying Iran is a grave threat. Because "not a serious threat" is closer to "not a threat" than it is to "a grave threat".

[dudalb]

I doubt his approach to Iran will be much different than GWB's. Some tough talk, but otherwise nothing significant.

I agree. Obama is already downplaying the "I Will Meet With the President Of Iran" angle. (I think Hilary was right on that, yes, have diplomatic talks but don't go the summit route until we know some kind of deal is possible.)
This whole thread is why I am cynical about politics. The Anti Obama People are wrong in saying that Obama said Iran is not a threat, the Pro Obama people do not want to admit that Obama put his foot in his mouth in his response to the Bush speech. Obama is going to have to remember that "It's Not What You Say, Buy How You Say It,That Makes Or Breaks A Case" is an old statement, a cliche, but very true none the less .

[chipmunk stew]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?
He didn't say Iran is not a potential threat, though. He said "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance." He's talking about their actions--"tried to pose"--not their potential. And he made the statement in the same speech in which he earlier said Iran was not as serious a threat as the Soviet Union was, a point that underscored both his view that we shouldn't be afraid of facing these (smaller) threats directly and his view that direct diplomacy offers the opportunity to make it plain to these heads of state that our responses to their actions will be very rational and predictable, not irrationally- or politically-driven. Action towards posing a serious (Soviet-scale) threat will be met with appropriately scaled sticks, while action towards becoming a respectable member of the world community will be met with appropriately scaled carrots.

[Pookster]

All right, I will apologize for the title of the thread, which should have read "Obama: Iran Not a Serious Threat". Is that acceptable to everybody?

Certainly.

Of course, I look forward to those saying Obama was right, Iran is not a serious threat to now castigate him for saying Iran is a grave threat. Because "not a serious threat" is closer to "not a threat" than it is to "a grave threat".

I don't look forward to it. Semantical word games like that are rather silly, don't you agree?

[Suddenly]

Iran's massive invasion was when? The Iran Iraq war was mostly waged in a constrained area between the two nations, though plenty of air raids and Theater Ballistic Missiles with conventional heads were fired deep into one another's territory. Not like the penetration of the USSR by the Wehrmacht, at all. Poor analogy, methinks.

Yes, Iran suffered horrific losses when Iraq invaded.

I am not quite following the Israel tie-in, given that Iran is considered with suspicion in most Arab capitals. I think your horrific losses example would be better done by comparing the British of WW I. Not invaded, but suffered horrific losses. Similarly in WW II: a lot of dead people, ships sunk, cities bombed, but not invaded.

Iran was invaded, and part of the reason they had such losses were battle tactics that at the time gave little weight to the lives of the troops. Human wave attacks, "volunteers" that would walk in front of tanks when traveling through a suspected minefield, and so on. The result as a matter of demographic effect is closer to Russia than England.[/quote]


If I read you correctly, the Iranians are worried about an Israeli attack from the air, not an invasion. Did I get that right?


Not quite. As to the arab sunni world, the largely Shiite Aryan Iran is in (a bit lesser) danger of the same sort of religious / ethnic xenophobia we see towards Israel. So it makes sense that they would be the loudest barking dog about Israel. This isn't denying any genuine hatred as to Israel, just that there is another political purpose for Iran to be conspicuous as to threats and other anti-Israel stuff.



i

Ever heard of a thing called a joke? Likewise the old gaffe by Reagan on a mic he thought was off "In five minutes, we bomb Russia."

Joke.

DR

A very reckless joke in both situations. For someone in Reagan's position during the crumbling of a heavily armed paranoid regime with drunken political and military leaders, it was appalling.

If one is going to engage in "humor" of questionable taste and possible inflammatory effect, one should be sure to do so in private. Otherwise it is very reckless behavior.

[Dr Adequate]

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far? If Iran is currently posing a serious threat to the USA, can I ask why the only effect of this thus far has been to provide talking points in the election campaign? I'd have thought those wonderful, wonderful Republicans would be doing something about it, especially since one of them happens to be President.

How exactly are they dealing with this serious threat? Besides slagging off Obama for stating the bleedin' obvious, of course.

[Just thinking]

Must be one of those invisible pink elephants.

:rolleyes:

No doubt, the Islamics are crazier and less concerned with their own individual well-being. Still, they could not conquer the US. The could not destroy any significant portion of our population.

Perhaps conquer is not the goal ... just incurring deaths. Many deaths. Please try and keep my points of this debate focused. I believe that they feel the need to do this as their own religious duty. Win or lose is not their game --- to kill is all that matters. Did the suicide terrorists of 9/11 feel that they were going to conquer anything? Or those that blew a hole in the USS Kohl?

Their very best shot so far was to destroy three buildings and damage a third. Most of the ones who carried out that attack were from Saudi Arabia, one of our allies. If you think that even a multinational terrorist attack is anything like a nuclear war between superpowers with many many H-bombs, then I think you are having some serious problems with scale.

The threat of total annihilation (USA vs. USSR) loses to a single nuclear bomb actually going off in say, a NY City seaport. (Conclusion: Scale has little to do with it.) The former was held at bay due to the fact that the Russians value their lives, culture and future every bit as much as Americans do. It is much harder to stop someone that doesn't care about dying.

Also, it should be pointed out that not a single attack on the US was committed by the armed forces of an Islamic nation.

Just where are many of the suicide insurgents in Iraq coming from?

Certainly I agree that the governments did nod and wink at them, but the first time an Islamic government actually sent soldiers of their army, that would be the end for them.

And they know that. Which is why they are taking their nuclear program to the inevitable conclusion, despite all the efforts to stop it. They know their first major strike will be met with extreme force ... which is why (I believe) they want it to be a biggie.

The first time Iran sent a nuke (assuming they have one) would be the last. And they know this. So does North Korea. (Depending on who they nuked. If NK nuked Iraq, we'd probably call it a "measured response".)

Speaking of NK, I feel that the leaders there value their lifestyle too much to risk losing it in a nuclear exchange. Not so with the mullahs.

Now compare this to a country that has a whole lot of nukes that are ready to fly long distances and that nation invades a country with their soldiers and full military might, just because they have a rumor that they may have some weapons. Sure Iran is crazy and dangerous, but you'd have a hard time convincing many people that they are more crazy than the US when it comes to attacking other countries. And they're sure as hell no where near as dangerous.

I did the comparison, and so far no one has answered my questions.

Don't get me wrong, I hate terrorism and I'd like to stop it, but to pretend it is anything close to the danger of nuclear annihilation is... well... crazy.

Just for the record ... I never said we would be obliterated ... simply hit. And hit hard if it's nuclear. And I think it's more likely from those that feel it's their religious obligation as opposed to those that simply want to hold someone at bay.

But of course, that is not the case. You don't see any of the nations' leaders taking part in suicide attacks. Neither do I see them holding the position that they would gladly wipe themselves off the map if they could also wipe Israel off the map.

Perhaps you might want to ask those in Israel (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689559/posts).

What I see is them wanting to defeat Israel, not join them in death. Can you point me to a single statement from Iraq or any Islamic nation that suggests that they would end the lives of all their countrymen if they could achieve the end of Israel?

Perhaps not all, but (http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm) ...

[BPSCG]

Do you think Iran could conquer the US? Yes, they could hurt us. Maybe hurt us badly, but there is no serious threat of being defeated by Iran. And where did Obama use those last five words? Here's what he said in his Oregon speech:
If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world."

In the end, Iran could cause us severe discomfort, even genuine hardship. It is not to be taken lightly. On the other hand it should not provoke a Chicken Little response that the sky is falling. Let's see. They're trying to get nuclear weapons. They're testing long-range ballistic missiles. They surely cold not defeat us in a war, but are you serious when you say such a country would not pose a serious threat? A country can only be a serious threat if it can defeat the U.S. in a war?

I suppose, by that measure, you wouldn't consider al Qaeda to be a serious threat, either.

[T.A.M.]

was the wording "not a serious threat" used as a comparative, to the threat posed by Russia or China in the past?

Or did he just say, "in general, Iran is not a serious threat?"

TAM:)

[Pookster]

And where did Obama use those last five words? Here's what he said in his Oregon speech:


Well, Obama did say "they wouldn't stand a chance" when it comes to posing a serious threat to us. I don't believe it would be a leap in logic to assume he believes the same regarding actually defeating the United States carrying out that threat. It could just be me though.

[Pookster]

was the wording "not a serious threat" used as a comparative, to the threat posed by Russia or China in the past?

Or did he just say, "in general, Iran is not a serious threat?"

TAM:)

This whole thing is sillier than trying to define what the definition of "is" is. :duck:

[ZouPrime]

I suppose, by that measure, you wouldn't consider al Qaeda to be a serious threat, either.
Al Qaeda isn't a serious threat. It's not because the current american government has been saying otherwise for the last 8 years that it is actually true.

[WildCat]

And Wildcat, is really your best argument against a sit-down because you are afraid of being laughed at? Or are you claiming that Rosevelt's request to respect national borders in some way caused or helped Hitler to invade those countries?
No, the argument is that an enemy who not only thinks you're a fool but also plays you as such isn't going to negotiate with you.

[joobz]

No, the argument is that an enemy who not only thinks you're a fool but also plays you as such isn't going to negotiate with you.
Certainly a regime bent on a destructionist path won't negotiate. But does that mean you don't at least attempt nogotiations? Can we be certain which regimes are hell bent for confrontations vs. those which can be reasoned with without nogotiations?

Also, I do not understand your claim of "playing you a fool". I am ignorant to this part of world history, but was Rosevelt somehow tricked into helping Hitler as a result of the letter? Do you believe the clip you showed presents the US in a bad light or Hitler's regime in a bad light?

it seems to me that it does more to show Hitler's contempt of peace than any weakness in the US, but that could be merely my opinion.

[varwoche]

There I would disagree. Sure, they don't pose the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but they seem to pose a much greater chance of doing something very serious. What Tricky said. And...

Of course risk assessment must take into account probabilities. The probabilities are debatable when you consider how close the USSR came to launching a nuke. link (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cold-war/sovietsbomb.htm)

That said, I'm way queezy with the concept of religious fanatics possessing nukes. Makes me wistful for commies.

[Darth Rotor]

I assume you remember the European lefts reaction to the deployment of the Trident Missiles in Europe? To SDI? The British "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament" the organisation that demanded unilateral disarmament. The one that pioneered the famous peace sign? My point that when it comes to the left, the message is nothing if not consistent.
That would be Pershing missiles, the Tridents were on boomers (SSBNs) and thus not deployed to Europe. (If you want to quibble about SSBNs calling in Holy Loch for repairs and refit, go ahead, it was Pershing that was the core issue on deploying medium range nuclear cruise missiles to Europe in a counter to the SS series (20 IIRC, forget) in the Eastern Bloc. )

The Trident's were deep underwater, far from land.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Why is it that it seems some here do not see the elephant in the room?
He's wearing sunglasses.
Now, I will say it, since no one else seems to be able to: Religious fundamentalists that are hell bent on doing harm with no regard for their own lives (and/or those of their people) pose a greater threat than the Russians did/do.
Yes, but I'd like to know how many national leaders are of that mind state, as opposed to the dupes who are talked into being a suicide bomber. Once in charge, the survival instinct tends to grow, eh?
Yes, for 40 some years we and the Soviets had enough weapons pointed at each other to kill the world many times over. Yet, with all those weapons, and all the tension, just how many hits from them did the US take in all that time?
Zero.
How many buildings in Manhattan did they strike down?
None.
How many US Navy ships were hit?
Are you including the USS Pueblo? The USS Scorpion, thought by some to have been hit by a Crazy Ivan?
How many military buildings/embassies over seas?
Do you want to include the US officials kidnapped in Lebanon? The Airmen dead in the early cold war? (See the book By Any Means Necessary for a look at pre satellite, pre U-2 airborne surveillance and intel collecting, and the dead.)
How much damage was inflicted on the Pentagon?
Not much.
How many innocent civilians here at home were killed?
How many draftees were killed in Viet Nam during that period? In Korea?
Big difference when your enemy doesn't care about living till tomorrow.
Indeed, but see above: how many national leaders adopt that position? The Gotterdamerung is an archaic Germanic/Norse world view, the establishment of the Caliphate, or of Islamic Republics, is the current issue being addressed. You can't establish the Caliphate, nor more Islamic Republics, if you pull the house down on yourself.

Samson was a Hebrew/Jew, not an Arab, and not a Persian/Mede/Aryan/Iranian.

DR

[Oliver]

Warning, may be illegal to view in parts of Europe:
-0G5aYiLfVM


You're kidding, eh? :confused:

[WildCat]

You're kidding, eh? :confused:
Yes, I was kidding. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113850).

[WildCat]

Certainly a regime bent on a destructionist path won't negotiate. But does that mean you don't at least attempt nogotiations? Can we be certain which regimes are hell bent for confrontations vs. those which can be reasoned with without nogotiations?
I don't know how many times I have had to point this out over the various threads on this subject, but of course you keep diplomatic channels open. The danger is compromise your position by sending the POTUS without any sort of initial agreements in which case it becomes purely a propaganda tool. Think Hugo Chavez at the UN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKCSSHLCCME&feature=related), only much worse.

Also, I do not understand your claim of "playing you a fool". I am ignorant to this part of world history, but was Rosevelt somehow tricked into helping Hitler as a result of the letter? Do you believe the clip you showed presents the US in a bad light or Hitler's regime in a bad light?

it seems to me that it does more to show Hitler's contempt of peace than any weakness in the US, but that could be merely my opinion.
Of course it shows Hitler's contempt for peace, and it also shows Roosevelt's babe-in-the-woods naivete. I don't think that room full of Nazis would have had such a hearty belly laugh if Roosevelt had simply demanded that Germany's armies stayed within its borders or else - even if the "or else" was a bluff. But a letter asking them to pretty please don't invade all those countries gets nothing but laughs and Hitler knows Roosevelt won't give him much trouble when he goes ahead with his plans.

It's like showing your hand in poker, ever play poker joobz?

[Just thinking]

He's wearing sunglasses.

... and mustache. :D But you may be right.

Yes, but I'd like to know how many national leaders are of that mind state, as opposed to the dupes who are talked into being a suicide bomber. Once in charge, the survival instinct tends to grow, eh?

Depends ... how's your leaders' health? Is it going to hell? Then send your health to Hades and your soul to Allah!

Zero.

None.

Thanks for answering.

Are you including the USS Pueblo? The USS Scorpion, thought by some to have been hit by a Crazy Ivan?

Is a Crazy Ivan maneuver considered an intentional assault? Anyway, the Pueblo was not attacked by the USSR.

Do you want to include the US officials kidnapped in Lebanon? The Airmen dead in the early cold war? (See the book By Any Means Necessary for a look at pre satellite, pre U-2 airborne surveillance and intel collecting, and the dead.)

As unfortunate as those deaths were, they were not launched at vessels not engaged in action.

Not much.

Again ... thank you.

How many draftees were killed in Viet Nam during that period? In Korea?

Too many ... much more than the 3000 killed on 9/11 or in all engagements presently in Iraq. But we were fighting regimes supported by the USSR --- there is a difference than if we were engaging them outright as we did the enemies of WWII.

Indeed, but see above: how many national leaders adopt that position? The Gotterdamerung is an archaic Germanic/Norse world view, the establishment of the Caliphate, or of Islamic Republics, is the current issue being addressed. You can't establish the Caliphate, nor more Islamic Republics, if you pull the house down on yourself.

They anticipate the rise of other Muslims to fight to the end. They martyr themselves all over the place ... this is not an exaggeration.

[godofpie]

I don't know how many times I have had to point this out over the various threads on this subject, but of course you keep diplomatic channels open. The danger is compromise your position by sending the POTUS without any sort of initial agreements in which case it becomes purely a propaganda tool. elt won't give him much trouble when he goes ahead with his plans.

It's like showing your hand in poker, ever play poker joobz?

Now this is what confuses me. Isn't Palestine being run by so called terrorists? Didn't GW just visit with them and declare there would be a Palestinian state by the end of his presidency? How is that different than keeping open negotiations with Iran or N Korea different? What ever happened to walk softly but carry a big stick? Playing poker requires more than one player. If your not negotiating you're just playing with yourself.

[Tricky]

Perhaps conquer is not the goal ... just incurring deaths. Many deaths. Please try and keep my points of this debate focused. I believe that they feel the need to do this as their own religious duty. Win or lose is not their game --- to kill is all that matters. Did the suicide terrorists of 9/11 feel that they were going to conquer anything? Or those that blew a hole in the USS Kohl?
I don't think that even radical Muslims think that they will accomplish anything by killing lots of non-Muslims. I think the goal of each terrorist attack is... well... to sow terror. Yes, they want us to be afraid of them. Some of them want it so much that they will give their lives for it. But to assign suicidal tendencies to every single member of Hamas or Hezbollah or any radical Islamic group is wrong. They want to advance their cause. Their cause will not be advanced if they are all dead. I don't believe this fact eludes them. It shouldn't elude you either.

The threat of total annihilation (USA vs. USSR) loses to a single nuclear bomb actually going off in say, a NY City seaport. (Conclusion: Scale has little to do with it.) The former was held at bay due to the fact that the Russians value their lives, culture and future every bit as much as Americans do. It is much harder to stop someone that doesn't care about dying.
And again, you assume that no Muslim cares about dying. These terrorists consider themselves soldiers. They are soldiers who are willing, maybe even eager to die for their cause. But they are not the totality of Islam. They are the warriors. We have warriors too who are willing to die for their country. Not all Americans behave like soldiers, and no American soldier would want their whole country to die. They are willing to die for their country, not with.


Just where are many of the suicide insurgents in Iraq coming from? Various places. As you must know, Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists. The poor people under the thumb of the Saud family dictatorship rebel against the wealthy class. In Iran, the US propped up the tyrannical Shah, against the wishes of the masses. The US is sending mixed messages. It likes dictatorship just fine when it serves their cause. Maybe you don't see the hypocrisy in that policy, but I'm pretty sure that Arabs and Persians see it.


And they know that. Which is why they are taking their nuclear program to the inevitable conclusion, despite all the efforts to stop it. They know their first major strike will be met with extreme force ... which is why (I believe) they want it to be a biggie.
I doubt that. They are being watched closely. They don't dare do anything big. Hell, the US and Russia both knew where missile silos were. They were mapped and targeted. Do you think Iran could build a "biggie" in secret? Keep in mind that satellite surveillance has improved a lot.

Also note the both the US and the USSR, and even France and China have performed nuclear tests. That's the sort of thing that nuclear powers do to scare people. They don't build them in secret and hope they work. Iran is not a "serious" nuclear threat. They are a "country to be watched". You saw what happened the last time we decided a country was a nuclear threat and invaded them. You want the US to embarrass themselves (expensively) again?

Speaking of NK, I feel that the leaders there value their lifestyle too much to risk losing it in a nuclear exchange. Not so with the mullahs.
I think the Mullahs like their lifestyle just fine. Have you ever seen a Mullah strap bombs to himself? They let the "soldiers" do that. Individuals may be suicidal, but governments rarely are. If I'm wrong, please direct me to some examples.


Just for the record ... I never said we would be obliterated ... simply hit. And hit hard if it's nuclear. And I think it's more likely from those that feel it's their religious obligation as opposed to those that simply want to hold someone at bay.
Well I won't dispute the fact that religion will make people do crazy things that politics wouldn't, but I still say that the threat from Iran is not serious, compared to the historical (and maybe even present) threat from the USSR/Russia. Not even close. Obama was right. Yes, they could hurt us. Pick your adjective, "serious", "grave", "dangerous" or whatever pedantic game you want to play. Iran is not in the same league as the USSR is/was. You can deny this if you like, but all the evidence is against you.

Perhaps not all, but (http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm) ...
Oh yeah. You can find firebrands. You can play recordings of McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." It doesn't mean that this is the policy of our government, or even of McCain. Big picture, JT, big picture. Don't focus on individual incidents.

[corplinx]

I just found out that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons in 2005 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/mehr080905.html). Yes, there have religious and political leaders this cynical before. However, someone capable of this kind of bluff isn't a madman looking for his 72 virgins either. That fatwa, combined with the recent NIE showing that Iran is not trying to building nuclear weapons, is enough to let me consider that in this Iran is being completely up front.

So which is it? Fatwa or international pressure?

Perhaps you should try reading the NIE instead of repeating spin.
Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.

Since you brought up the NIE though:
We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so

We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them

The NIE:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

[BeAChooser]

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR. THe message never changes.

True. :D

[joobz]

I don't know how many times I have had to point this out over the various threads on this subject, but of course you keep diplomatic channels open. The danger is compromise your position by sending the POTUS without any sort of initial agreements in which case it becomes purely a propaganda tool. Think Hugo Chavez at the UN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKCSSHLCCME&feature=related), only much worse.Possibly. But that's merely speculation, isn't it? I could claim that even with all the agreements in place you want, the meeting can become purely a propaganda tool.


Of course it shows Hitler's contempt for peace, and it also shows Roosevelt's babe-in-the-woods naivete. I don't think that room full of Nazis would have had such a hearty belly laugh if Roosevelt had simply demanded that Germany's armies stayed within its borders or else - even if the "or else" was a bluff. But a letter asking them to pretty please don't invade all those countries gets nothing but laughs and Hitler knows Roosevelt won't give him much trouble when he goes ahead with his plans.What makes you think that Obama's talks will be a simple "pretty please?"

It's like showing your hand in poker, ever play poker joobz?
This analogy is poor. Willingness to face your enemies face-to-face is a position of strength and power. Avoidance is easily seen as cowardice.

[WildCat]

Possibly. But that's merely speculation, isn't it? I could claim that even with all the agreements in place you want, the meeting can become purely a propaganda tool.
Sure it can. But you have diplomats do the heavy lifting beforehan - the POTUS doesn't just show up and start negotiations out of thin air. With the Soviets it took months or years of diplomats hashing out the details before the POTUS met face-to-face with the Soviet leader. Why is Iran so special these steps should be skipped entirely?

What makes you think that Obama's talks will be a simple "pretty please?"
What makes you think they wouldn't?

This analogy is poor.
So you haven't ever played poker. And it shows.

Willingness to face your enemies face-to-face is a position of strength and power. Avoidance is easily seen as cowardice.
A "position of strength and power" has nothing to do with what you're willing to do. It has to do with actually being in a position of strength and power, and showing up without any groundwork at all is certainly not a position of strength.

[joobz]

Sure it can. But you have diplomats do the heavy lifting beforehan - the POTUS doesn't just show up and start negotiations out of thin air. With the Soviets it took months or years of diplomats hashing out the details before the POTUS met face-to-face with the Soviet leader. Why is Iran so special these steps should be skipped entirely?


What makes you think they wouldn't? Based upon the tenor of the speeches. It's not hard to see that.


So you haven't ever played poker. And it shows.
That's a rather dumb conclusion. I've played poker, and typically it's a game you play face-to-face. Your solution is one of avoidance. That's rather a poor poker face. As I said, What sounds like a stronger POTUS?

"I'm willing to face my enemies."

"My administration will go into talks with their administration, then once amicable agreements after dozens of meetings, where we can make many demands you will call unreasonable and allow us to be characterized as cowardly and afraid, all the while I can continue pretend tough talk. "

A "position of strength and power" has nothing to do with what you're willing to do. It has to do with actually being in a position of strength and power, and showing up without any groundwork at all is certainly not a position of strength.
Again, you are projecting "no groundwork". Further, it's clearly a strong statement to say,"I'm willinig to talk to my enemies. I have nothing to fear." That's a position of power. You're sounding cowardly by saying the POTUS shouldn't be willing to talk.

[Pookster]

Sure it can. But you have diplomats do the heavy lifting beforehan - the POTUS doesn't just show up and start negotiations out of thin air. With the Soviets it took months or years of diplomats hashing out the details before the POTUS met face-to-face with the Soviet leader. Why is Iran so special these steps should be skipped entirely?

Does not having "preconditions" mean that Obama wouldn't have diplomats doing some early groundwork beforehand? Are you literally interpreting "no preconditions" as being "hey, Iran ... I'm gonna drop by for a visit next week to have a chat"?

[Tricky]

Does not having "preconditions" mean that Obama wouldn't have diplomats doing some early groundwork beforehand? Are you literally interpreting "no preconditions" as being "hey, Iran ... I'm gonna drop by for a visit next week to have a chat"?
I would guess it means "no publicly stated preconditions." Obviously there are some preconditions in the minds of the negotiators. For example, "We will not withdraw all support for Israel" is probably a precondition, even if not stated publicly.

Really, I think that's the way to go. Stating your unchangable positions prior to meeting is effectively the same as showing your cards in advance (to continue with the poker analogy). Stating that you are not showing your cards is not the same as not having cards.

[BeAChooser]

The comparison of Iran to the USSR misses the real threat posed by Iran. A much better comparison would be with Nazi Germany. I would suggest that Obama (were he to become President) might eventually be regarded as the "Neville Chamberlain" of our time. :)

[moon1969]

So Iran is more important then Cuba? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a biger dictator then Raúl Castro? I hope Obama ask Raúl Castro to change Cuba. Probaly nothing will change in Cuba and Raúl Castro will be just like his brother Fidel Castro.

[Pookster]

I would guess it means "no publicly stated preconditions." Obviously there are some preconditions in the minds of the negotiators. For example, "We will not withdraw all support for Israel" is probably a precondition, even if not stated publicly.

Really, I think that's the way to go. Stating your unchangable positions prior to meeting is effectively the same as showing your cards in advance (to continue with the poker analogy). Stating that you are not showing your cards is not the same as not having cards.

I agree. I just don't see Obama showing up without some groundwork being done beforehand ... preconditions or not -- which is what WildCat seemed to be saying. Obviously there are implicit preconditions as you mention. There will just be no "demands" made of Iran beforehand though.

Poker is such a bad analogy too, IMO, unless you're playing something like Texas hold'em or whatever it's called (the thing on ESPN) where most of your cards are automatically known to all the players. You just don't know which cards will ultimately make up your opponent's hand.

[Deus Ex Machina]

It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA?

Because people who deny the obvious and insist that they are going to destroy a country and are the leaders of a country are, in general, a threat.

Specifically he is a threat to the US for several reasons:

a) Israel is a strategic US ally.
b) Iran has the capability to shut down vital shipping lanes for western oil.
c) Iran has proxy terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

Now as someone else said on this thread - Obama said that Iran was not the same sort of threat as the USSR, and I concur with that. Iran is far worse. The USSR and the USA had a respect for consequences should they directly attack each other. There was no point in initiating a war when you would destroy your own country and standard of living. Millenial cults and doomsday religions actively seek consummation by destruction. This makes Iran far more likely to initiate a confrontation than the USSR.


USA hates Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? So why did Iran close all offices of Hezb-e-Islami on February 10, 2002?


what has this got to do with anything?


Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981?


Yes, do you? Do you remember the reaction to the raid? Do you remember why the raid was feasible in the first place and why such a raid would not be feasible in Iran? However I would not preclude them taking some action if they think that everyone else will just stand around and do nothing.

Obama, by his "willing to talk to Iran" rhetoric does make such an Israeli strike more likely, not less.


Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East.


so what? At what point has America been popular in the Middle east (Israel excepted of course)? America kicks Saddam out of a mid east country that he had invaded - were the Arabs out in the street waving the stars and stripes and shouting "Allah Bless America!"? Were they buggery.

As for Iran - if the US attacked Iran most of the Middle east, the Arabs, would be pretty happy about it. They would not come out in support of America publicly of course...


Didn"t McCain sign bomb bomb Iran? McCain can"t fund a war with Iran because the USA has no money plus McCain would have to bring back the draft.

Not sure what you mean with this paragraph. I don't think McCain - or anyone else in the US - is looking to start a war with Iran on the ground. I don't think the US Military as it is positioned right now can embark on something like that. It needs to finish up in Iraq and review the strategic posting of US troops overseas.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by moon1969
It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA?

Because people who deny the obvious and insist that they are going to destroy a country and are the leaders of a country are, in general, a threat.

And keep in mind the US is the "Great Satan". We were called that long before the invasion of Iraq. I'm sure Iran's leaders wouldn't be content with just destroying the "little Satan". :)

[ZouPrime]

Because people who deny the obvious and insist that they are going to destroy a country and are the leaders of a country are, in general, a threat.

Most of Iran rhetoric against the jews are aimed at their national expectations. This has been pointed out again and again. It doesn't mean it describes correctly their foreign policy. All countries do that, even the US. Clinton said she wanted to attack Iran, does it means she really will do it? Of course not, it's just political posturing. Same thing for denying the holocaust - as long as a significant majority of the Iranian population believe so, don't expect their leader to change their tune. Of course, western politicians understand that, but it doesn't stop them from exploiting the situation and creating fear for the… credulous and ignorant mass.


Specifically he is a threat to the US for several reasons:

a) Israel is a strategic US ally.

So it's not a threat to the US then. You could always say that it's in the US interest to help it's political allies in the middle east, but it doesn't mean that Iran is suddendly a threat. Also, Israel is a much bigger threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel.

b) Iran has the capability to shut down vital shipping lanes for western oil.

And the US has the capability to do much worst to every single nation of the world. Does it mean that these nations are justified to consider the US a threat based on this?

c) Iran has proxy terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

… which doesn't operate against the US. Also, the US has an history of supporting proxy organisations around the world, so I don't know exactly why you complain. Every powers use proxies.

Now as someone else said on this thread - Obama said that Iran was not the same sort of threat as the USSR, and I concur with that. Iran is far worse. The USSR and the USA had a respect for consequences should they directly attack each other. There was no point in initiating a war when you would destroy your own country and standard of living. Millenial cults and doomsday religions actively seek consummation by destruction. This makes Iran far more likely to initiate a confrontation than the USSR.

"Millenial cults and doomsday religions" doesn't really describe Iran very well. In the sense of not at all. But hey, denhumazing it's ennemy in order to justify any action against it is a game the US has mastered over the year. Sad people still fall for it.

[Tricky]

So Iran is more important then Cuba? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a biger dictator then Raúl Castro? I hope Obama ask Raúl Castro to change Cuba. Probaly nothing will change in Cuba and Raúl Castro will be just like his brother Fidel Castro.
Iran is much more important than Cuba. Cuba is a tiny, impoverished island nation whose only threat to the US is their proximity, a threat that is only important if a major power sends them weapons. By all accounts, there are no missiles in Cuba now, nor are they in any sort of position to get any. Neither do they have any important exports, as both rum and cigars are quite easily made in other places. For more than fifty years, the intransigence of Castro and the US has been depriving Cuba of their most valuable resource. Tourism.

If you want to talk about dangerous dictatorships, then the first entry on your list should be Saudi Arabia, yet we deal with them. Why not with Iran or Cuba?

[Darth Rotor]

The comparison of Iran to the USSR misses the real threat posed by Iran. A much better comparison would be with Nazi Germany.
How so?

Other than a stated dislike for Jews, what do Iran in 2008 and Germany in 1938 have in common?

Look at a few indicators:

Relative strength of economy
Geographic location
Relative power
Population
Territorial issues with neighboring states
Ethnic minorities in neighboring states

Of note to Americans:

Some sympathies in late 1930's among Americans of German descent and Isolationists were on Germany's side.

Does Iran have a similar constituency here in America?

I don't think the comparison stacks up too well.

Germany was trying to return as one of the five great powers of Europe, and thus the world. At the time, the Powers of Europe were the powers of the globe, with US and Japan added as major powers.

Iran is a middling power, at best, globally, though a big dog in the Persian Gulf. When it comes to pecking orders, and who is or is not a power, Iran isn't even in the top ten, and never was.

As to Obama and Chamberlain, you are comparing a British Tory and an American Democrat, which I find amusing. (Chamberlain was a Conservative, and was PM of the UK 1937 - 1940.)

What territories do you think Obama will cede to Iran?

Who will he sell out, as the Czechs were sold out?

Please elaborate, your sound byte needs more meat. It lacks flavor as stated.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

But hey, denhumazing it's ennemy in order to justify any action against it is a game the US has mastered over the year. Sad people still fall for it.
Yeah, only America would do such a thing. :rolleyes:

The Ayatollah Khomeini on the US: The Great Satan

Hugo Chavez


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez tore into his U.S. counterpart and his U.N. hosts Wednesday, likening President Bush to the devil and telling the General Assembly that its system is "worthless."

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. "And it smells of sulfur still today."

Chavez accused Bush of having spoken "as if he owned the world" and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement. (Watch Hugo Chavez cross himself as he tells world leaders he can smell the devil -- 1:06)

"As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' "
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html

Guy sounds almost like a certain Canadian official, M Ducros, who referred to President Bush as a moron.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/11/21/moron021121.html

PM Chretien then kindly damned Bush with faint praise: Bush is "a friend of mine. He's not a moron at all."

Got to hand it to our dear Canadian friends --civilized, even in insult.

Cheers.

DR

[Corsair 115]

Obama has already promised that we will meet the 3rd demand...There is implicit in this statement the assumption that what a politician pledges to do during a campaign will be what he/she actually does when in office. I would suggest the correlation between what is pledged during a campaign and what is actually done when in office is not particularly high.

Guy sounds almost like a certain Canadian official, M Ducros, who referred to President Bush as a moron. Not one of our better political moments.

[varwoche]

If you want to talk about dangerous dictatorships, then the first entry on your list should be Saudi Arabia, yet we deal with them. Why not with Iran or Cuba? If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing.

[chipmunk stew]

If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing.
Don't forget tucking tail and returning home in shame.

[Texas]

What territories do you think Obama will cede to Iran?

Iraq, Lebanon.

Who will he sell out, as the Czechs were sold out?

If he follows Jimmy Carter's approach, Israel.

[Texas]

If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing.

I think the description you are looking for is a long term alliance with a country that has fought by our side in a war, that has supplied us with oil for generations and that has overruled OPEC on many occasions to increase supply when needed. A government that despite having the 2 holiest sites in Islam has stood with us at great risk to their own positions against the extremists in their midst.

[Tricky]

I think the description you are looking for is a long term alliance with a country that has fought by our side in a war.
I am unaware of any significant military contributions that the Saudis have made to any of our wars. Their participation could be at best called "symbolic".

...that has supplied us with oil for generations and that has overruled OPEC on many occasions to increase supply when needed. For which they charge us, and for which in return, receive our protection.

A government that despite having the 2 holiest sites in Islam has stood with us at great risk to their own positions against the extremists in their midst.
There is some risk at being ANY country in the Mideast, but having more money than any other country and having the biggest dog on the block guarding your backside makes that risk considerably less, at least for the rich people in SA.

The problem though is not the rich people, for the most part. It is the common people. They are brutally repressed, especially women. They are deprived of anything resembling democracy. They are furious with their leadership but without much power to do anything about it. (The Saudis don't have much of an army, but they have one HECK of a police force.)

There is a very good, though admittedly biased book called Sleeping with the Devil (http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/dp/1400050219) which is about our long-term relationship with the Saud family and what it has entailed. It can be difficult to read because huge sections have been excised by the censors because of "national security" reasons. It can also be difficult to read because it is horrifying. The way the Saud family treats the people and the shameless and brutal way they retain power can be rather gut-wrenching.

Yes we should deal with them. We should deal with everyone. No, we shouldn't support them just because they have lots of oil. They are just as evil as Iran, Cuba or North Korea. To ignore this makes us the worst kind of hypocrites. And the people of Saudi Arabia know it. Why do you think the majority of 9-11 terrorists were from there? Why would they attack "their ally"?

[Texas]

I am unaware of any significant military contributions that the Saudis have made to any of our wars. Their participation could be at best called "symbolic".


They provided both air and ground forces in the first Gulf War and acquitted themselves very well. They also absorbed numerous Scud attacks in their cities.




For which they charge us, and for which in return, receive our protection.

Yes we pay for their oil. We also have mutual defense pacts with them just as we have with the EU.


There is some risk at being ANY country in the Mideast, but having more money than any other country and having the biggest dog on the block guarding your backside makes that risk considerably less, at least for the rich people in SA.

You completely ignored the main 2 reasons for much of the religious oppression in Saudi Arabia.

The problem though is not the rich people, for the most part. It is the common people. They are brutally repressed, especially women. They are deprived of anything resembling democracy. They are furious with their leadership but without much power to do anything about it. (The Saudis don't have much of an army, but they have one HECK of a police force.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#History
I know about the religious oppression, I lived in Kingdom for 6 years. How do you know they are furious with their leadership? The populace lives under religious law yes BUT Saudi Arabia has a very high per capita living standard of living and modern infrastructure, modern educational system with over 20 universities all free to both men and women. There is one foreign worker for every 5 Saudi citizens and one of the main reasons for their very strict laws is a result of that.

Yes we should deal with them. We should deal with everyone. No, we shouldn't support them just because they have lots of oil. They are just as evil as Iran, Cuba or North Korea. To ignore this makes us the worst kind of hypocrites. And the people of Saudi Arabia know it. Why do you think the majority of 9-11 terrorists were from there? Why would they attack "their ally"?

This is just plain silly. The hijackers were followers of OBL. OBL was kicked out of SA due to his attempts to overthrow the government because of the alliance. To put SA on the same level of Iran, Cuba and especially North Korea is specious at best.

[Dr Adequate]

If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing. "Romping hand-in-hand together through flower-strewn meadows"?

http://www.lrjjr.com/holding_hands_with_evil.jpeg

Now, let's hear it from the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7645118/):

If someone knows that he is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is free to do so ... The lawfulness of his action is in fighting an enemy who is fighting Muslims and came for war.

Still, heck, it's just a fatwa.

But we mustn't talk to the Iranians, that would be appeasement.

[godofpie]

Thanks for that link Dr A. Very informative. I am still waiting for an answer to my question to Wildcat. It was a sincere question.

[Tricky]

They provided both air and ground forces in the first Gulf War and acquitted themselves very well. They also absorbed numerous Scud attacks in their cities.
The first Gulf War was fought on their border. How many troops did they send to support us in Iraq?

Yes we pay for their oil. We also have mutual defense pacts with them just as we have with the EU.
Except that the EU actually does some mutual defending. Saudi Arabia defends themselves, and that's all.

You completely ignored the main 2 reasons for much of the religious oppression in Saudi Arabia.
The reasons for religious oppression in SA are similar to the reasons for said oppression in other Mideast places. We condemn it in our enemies but ignore it in our oil-rich allies. We ignored it in Iraq too, back when they were fighting Iran.

You think that because they have foreigners working there that this excuses religious oppression? Why are they worried that their people might become westernized? Do you think it might have anything to do with making sure they don't learn about how democracy works in free nations? That might be a threat to their rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#History)
I know about the religious oppression, I lived in Kingdom for 6 years. How do you know they are furious with their leadership? The populace lives under religious law yes BUT Saudi Arabia has a very high per capita living standard of living and modern infrastructure, modern educational system with over 20 universities all free to both men and women. There is one foreign worker for every 5 Saudi citizens and one of the main reasons for their very strict laws is a result of that.
Can a woman seek any job that a man can with her university education? Are they allowed to vote? Are they allowed to have contact with westerners?

This is just plain silly. The hijackers were followers of OBL. OBL was kicked out of SA due to his attempts to overthrow the government because of the alliance. To put SA on the same level of Iran, Cuba and especially North Korea is specious at best.
If OBL was trying to overthrow Saudi Arabia, then why didn't he attack them?

No, it's hardly specious. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship. The fact that they are a friendly dictatorship shouldn't make any difference to a country that is philosophically opposed to dictatorships.

Take a look at that book I mentioned. At least read some of the reviews. The Saud family are not nice guys.

[Texas]

"Romping hand-in-hand together through flower-strewn meadows"?

http://www.lrjjr.com/holding_hands_with_evil.jpeg

Now, let's hear it from the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7645118/):

If someone knows that he is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is free to do so ... The lawfulness of his action is in fighting an enemy who is fighting Muslims and came for war.

Still, heck, it's just a fatwa.

But we mustn't talk to the Iranians, that would be appeasement.

Well that stinks. The entire region is a pit of vipers.

[Texas]

If OBL was trying to overthrow Saudi Arabia, then why didn't he attack them?

.

You are close to saying that the government of SA was in cahoots with OBL for 911. Is that your position?

[Texas]

The reasons for religious oppression in SA are similar to the reasons for said oppression in other Mideast places. We condemn it in our enemies but ignore it in our oil-rich allies. We ignored it in Iraq too, back when they were fighting Iran.

.

No the administration does not ignore it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4305677.stm

US raps Russia and Saudi rights

Riyadh's staging of local elections does not deflect US criticism
Saudi Arabia and Russia come in for heavy criticism in the US state department annual human rights report.

[Texas]

The first Gulf War was fought on their border. How many troops did they send to support us in Iraq?


Except that the EU actually does some mutual defending. Saudi Arabia defends themselves, and that's all.


.

The same number of troops that NATO sent. None.

[Texas]

Can a woman seek any job that a man can with her university education? Are they allowed to vote? Are they allowed to have contact with westerners?

No they are not allowed to vote. Yes they can and do have contact with westerners since many leave the country for study and work.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=95003&d=15&m=4&y=2007

Among Saudi working women, 53.8 percent are involved in scientific, technical and humanitarian works. About 35.1 percent of expatriate workers are engaged in basic engineering professions while 28.2 percent are maidservants and 1.2 percent are managers, the study pointed out.

[varwoche]

The same number of troops that NATO sent. None. Crrrnk! (the sound of moving goalposts)

[Texas]

Crrrnk! (the sound of moving goalposts)
Just a simple statement of fact.

[Texas]

Crrrnk! (the sound of moving goalposts)


NATO is failing miserably in Afghanistan

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,534524,00.html
Not the Case in Afghanistan

The bickering, though, is a far cry from the occasional spat between players on the soccer field. Indeed, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has defined Afghanistan as a test case for the future success of the world's most powerful military alliance. So far, however, there is little evidence to suggest that the alliance might, in fact, pass the test. An alliance only works if its members support one another. This is clearly not the case in Afghanistan.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The comparison of Iran to the USSR misses the real threat posed by Iran. A much better comparison would be with Nazi Germany.
How so?

Other than a stated dislike for Jews, what do Iran in 2008 and Germany in 1938 have in common?

Surely you don't think the comparison with the USSR is better than the one with Germany. Or do you? :)

And "dislike"? Is that how you interpret Ahmadinejad's and many other Iranian leader's statements regarding Jews and Israel? Just simple "dislike"? :rolleyes:

Plus, you overlook the fact that it's not just "dislike" of Jews. The fundamentalists now in charge of Iran seem to also "dislike" the "Great Satan" ... us ... even more. And much of the West. In fact, their intolerance towards ANY non-muslim and the oppressive way they say non-muslims should be treated infuses their religion which in turn dominates their government. Do you also view that as just simple "dislike"? :)


Relative strength of economy


With regards to economy, why look at Germany in 1938? Afterall, Chamberlain began his efforts at appeasement of Hitler much earlier ... before it had annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia. Maybe that's where the comparison is strongest. In 1934, Germany's economy was much smaller than it was in 1938 ... because Hitler's 4 year plan to prepare Germany for war only began in 1936. It's amazing how much a small country's economy and military can grow in a short time ... if it's leaders and people have the will to devote themselves to that goal. Even a small country can rapidly become a big threat ... if the threat of that happening is ignored. History proves that time and again.

Just as important is the potential of the economy. Germany was a country with relatively few resources. To build Germany's military into the threat it became, Hitler had to devote a very large portion of the economy to the military. Over 20%, I seem to recall. Now Iran is sitting on very large oil reserves and given rising oil prices and a plethora of buyers, that means Iran's military can grow rapidly if it's leaders wish, perhaps without even imposing much additional hardship on it's civilian population.

Moreover, the chief threat that Iran poses doesn't lie in militarily conquering it's opponents. It lies in asymmetric conflict ... in using well funded terrorists to spread its ideology and control. As it is doing in Palestine, Lebanon and trying to do in Iraq.

Geographic location

I'd say both countries sit at important locations. Germany's was obviously important ... otherwise it wouldn't have been the focal point of 2 world wars, a number of major wars before that, and a major focus in the cold war that followed. What makes Iran important is that it is sitting dangerously close to the source of most of the world's oil supplies ... a resource on which the whole world now depends to maintain economic health.

Relative power

Sure, we've got a bigger military and lots of nuclear weapons but look what a relatively small number of terrorists did on 9/11. We are fighting a different type of war so perhaps relative power should be measured somewhat differently than in 1939. And you need to keep in mind is that power is only meaningful if one side is willing to use it. Bush has demonstrated that willingness and that power has dramatically altered the situation in the Middle East with even larger changes in store down the line. But under Obama and democRAT leadership, we might be perceived as being unwilling to employ that power ... especially if Obama starts his presidency by pulling out of Iraq prematurely. In which case, the only thing that might matter is how far Iran is willing to push. And so far Iran has shown quite a willingness to push. As long as they maintains a plausible deniability, they might be able to get away with a great deal. Even supply terrorists with WMD. And grow in strength and relatively power each time they do that.

Territorial issues with neighboring states

Hitler was out to put his government in charge of all the surrounding countries. Iran is already controlling the actions of several governments and it's religious leaders state they want to make the whole world obey that state religion.

Ethnic minorities in neighboring states

Not sure of your point, DR. Why don't you expand on this one.

Iran is a middling power, at best, globally, though a big dog in the Persian Gulf. When it comes to pecking orders, and who is or is not a power, Iran isn't even in the top ten, and never was.

But that could change quite rapidly. Even within a single US administration. Topple a few more governments in the Middle East, drive us out of the region with the help of democRAT appeasement, keep Europe occupied with its muslim "minority" problem and Iran could be more than a middling power in just a few short years. All they have to do is gain control of either Iraq or Saudi Arabia and the oil they'd have would give them the potential of dominating the region completely. Of blackmailing the West like never before.

What territories do you think Obama will cede to Iran?

Who will he sell out, as the Czechs were sold out?

Well for starters, Israel. And Iraq. And Jordan. And Afghanistan. And then you need to ask yourself where other muslim minorities want control. Fewer people believed in nazism than believe in authoritarian Islam. If just 10 percent of the billion Muslims in the world believe in what Iran's leadership now believes (and that's what some analysts say is the case), then you are looking at an enemy with 100 million followers ... egged on by Iran's leaders.

What other similarities are there? Both Nazi Germany and Iran are closed societies, where the state controls the press. That makes it easy for them to indoctrinate their subjects. In both Nazi Germany and Iran The State was the religion. Iran has Revolutionary Guards. Hitler had the SS. Both fanatical groups willing to do anything for the cause.

And there are factors that make Iran even more dangerous than Nazi Germany. The Nazi government hid the murder of Jews from its public. The islamofascists in Iran celebrate those they murder. In Nazi Germany there were no public exhibits of the Einsatzgruppen or gas chambers. In the Iran backed West Bank, there's an exhibit celebrating the suicide bombing of a pizza restaurant in Israel.

The Nazis, evil as they were, at least valued their own lives and that of their children. The Iran backed terrorists don't seem to value either. These are people who would be willing to strap a nuke on their child's body and set it off ... just as long as it did some damage to the infidels.
This is not a country and government that should possess nuclear weapons.

"Iran: Taking the Nazi Road to War By Brian Melton, 04/10/2008 ... snip ... Ahmadinejad and his cronies in Iran appear to be literally following a path blazed in the Twentieth Century by Hitler himself. In those fateful years leading up to World War II, Hitler consciously attempted to follow a policy that could be reasonably broken down into four stages: Stage 1: Convince the world that your intentions are both reasonable and peaceful. ... snip ... Stage 2: Pursue your own policy behind the scenes. ... snip ... Stage 3: Strike and accomplish your goal before your enemy can react. ... snip ... Stage 4: Fait Accompli—Reassume a reasonable posture and bargain from your new position. ... snip ... Of course, this approach never worked out in perfect order in real life, but it worked well enough and often enough for Hitler to take over the Rhineland, Austria, and all of Czechoslovakia while the Allies babbled pointlessly on about “a peace for our time.” Unfortunately for Hitler, he took his last step in Poland a little too quickly and on September 1, 1939, inaugurated a war he never intended to start; a war he could not win. ... snip ... There is at least one more commonality between the two situations: the universal gullibility of the western liberal-intellectual elite. What worked for Hitler seems to be working again for Ahmadinejad, and on the same people, no less. "

[BeAChooser]

The Saud family are not nice guys.

And you want them to go nuclear? Because if Iran does, SA probably won't be far behind.

[Texas]

Beautiful.

[Dr Adequate]

And you want them to go nuclear? You know, I don't think he does. I guess that's why he said nothing of the kind.

Beautiful. If you thought that was beautiful, feast your eyes on this.

http://www.thenomc.org/images/NOMC_Spring_2007_Straw_Man.jpg

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And you want them to go nuclear?

You know, I don't think he does. I guess that's why he said nothing of the kind.

You claim my comment is a strawman? Did you notice the "?". I think it would have been a strawman if I'd said "So ... you want them to go nuclear." (notice the period at the end). I was asking whether he wanted SA to go nuclear. Not saying that he did. And SA going nuclear is a logical outcome if Iran goes nuclear. In fact, I believe I've already read that the Saudis are exploring that option should it happen. :)

[Dr Adequate]

You claim my comment is a strawman? Did you notice the "?". I think it would have been a strawman if I'd said "So ... you want them to go nuclear." (notice the period at the end). I was asking whether he wanted SA to go nuclear. Not saying that he did. You're trying to pass off a rhetorical question as a request for information? Are you dumb or what?

And SA going nuclear is a logical outcome if Iran goes nuclear. In fact, I believe I've already read that the Saudis are exploring that option should it happen. :) And since I don't believe that Tricky wants Iran to go nuclear either, I don't see how this is relevant.

[BeAChooser]

You're trying to pass off a rhetorical question as a request for information?

No, I'm trying to show that perhaps that poster (and perhaps you too) haven't fully considered the consequences of appeasement. :)

[Tricky]

And you want them to go nuclear? Because if Iran does, SA probably won't be far behind.
I would prefer they didn't go nuclear, but then, I wish ALL countries would destroy their nuclear capability. What we have now is several countries that have nukes,including some marginally stable ones, like Pakistan.

As it stands now, only one country has ever used nukes against a populated target. This same country, on the flimsiest of pretenses, invaded another country within the last decade. Yet it is this country that is trying to dictate who is "trustworthy". The hypocrisy of this stance is astounding.

As I say, it would be better if nobody had nukes, but ya know how that goes. Genies. Bottles.

[BeAChooser]

This same country, on the flimsiest of pretenses, invaded another country within the last decade.

Well that's a matter of opinion. :)

[Dr Adequate]

No, I'm trying to show that perhaps that poster (and perhaps you too) haven't fully considered the consequences of appeasement. :) Nor, indeed, have we given a moment's thought to the possibility of appeasement. Why would we?

[Brainster]

I would prefer they didn't go nuclear, but then, I wish ALL countries would destroy their nuclear capability. What we have now is several countries that have nukes,including some marginally stable ones, like Pakistan.

As it stands now, only one country has ever used nukes against a populated target. This same country, on the flimsiest of pretenses, invaded another country within the last decade. Yet it is this country that is trying to dictate who is "trustworthy". The hypocrisy of this stance is astounding.

Let us remember that the UN doesn't think (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-03-iran-sanctions_N.htm) Iran is trustworthy.

The U.N. Security Council imposed new sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment but Iran defiantly vowed to continue its nuclear program, calling the council's action illegal and politically motivated.

[chipmunk stew]

This same country, on the flimsiest of pretenses, invaded another country within the last decade.

Well that's a matter of opinion. :)
Which part is opinion?

[varwoche]

NATO is failing miserably in Afghanistan
Damn forum software! It appears that posts are bleeding over from unrelated threads.

[Tricky]

Damn forum software! It appears that posts are bleeding over from unrelated threads.
Sorry. Ya git them fingers typin' an' they jes caint stop!:D

Besides, the dishonestly edited quote that serves as the thread title was long ago shown to a part of an accurate statement by Obama, that Iran is not as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. Few here dispute that. Neither does anyone dispute that Iran is a threat.

So we gotta find sumthin else to fight about.

[ronpaulisright]

Let's see the soviets had 40,000 nukes and iran has......... wait, how many nukes does iran have? Don't worry I'll wait.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's see the soviets had 40,000 nukes and iran has......... wait, how many nukes does iran have? Don't worry I'll wait. Hey, shouldn't you be attacking Obama for being a stooge of the sinister CFR or whatever it was?

Ah, so difficult, what to do, what to do.

[ronpaulisright]

The CFR is the think tank that is more powerful than you think. The Concil On Foreign Relations. Look it up.

every country should have nukes.

**** the house of saud.

[boloboffin]

I've found a closer example to what I find objectionable about the title of this thread. This is from DU.

Jimmy Carter to Hillary Clinton: "Give It Up" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6121686&mesg_id=6121686)

Going to the source, Carter actually declines to declare himself. He does say that at the end of the primary process that it looks like Clinton will have to give it up, though. So some Obama supporter clipped off all the inconvenient words that qualify those words and posted a lie. Jimmy Carter didn't tell Hillary to give it up. He said it looks like it will be the likely thing. Carter's words are completely understandable, as are Obama's. But for the sake of partisanship, both the title of this thread and the DU thread were constructed from a select portion of the quotee's words to produce an overall lie.

Now it's not precisely the same because Carter may soon be telling Clinton to give it up. But Jimmy Carter didn't tell Hillary Clinton to give it up, and Barack Obama did not say that Iran wasn't a threat. Period.