|
|
Post by thepapacy on Apr 22, 2015 8:04:42 GMT -8
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Cheney tried to coax his puppet president into bombing Iran. Said Cheney was distressed when the puppet would not follow his orders, so he started to consider all his options and focused on the long game. What has happened since? Reasonable, adult discussion about Iran, in which Netanyahu does not shape US foreign policy, has become an attack point for Republicans against level-headed decision makers. Any current GOP leader with ambition has to pass the new Cheney litmus test. Jeb Bush hires a team of 20 foreign policy advisors, only one of whom did not serve under W, HW, and/or Reagan (including Paul Wolfowitz and Michael Hayden, evil in human form). Ted Cruz compares our current diplomatic efforts to appeasement of Hitler in 1938. Tom Cotton composes a letter signed by the GOP Senate (including Cruz) that circumvents diplomatic efforts and is borderline treasonous. Marco Rubio says in no uncertain terms that unless all nuclear activity is stopped in Iran, the U.S. will bomb and invade. It is troubling, on many levels, that the same hawks who carpetbombed our economy, committed war crimes, and ruined our standing in the Middle East - not to mention lying to our country of both the motive and scale of the wars - would still hold the keys to the GOP gate and very well could have power once again. If this isn't reason to not vote Republican for the next 20 years or so, I don't know what would be. swampland.time.com/2007/05/25/cheneys_iran_fantasy/Huckabee during Boosh: www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63059/michael-d-huckabee/americas-priorities-in-the-war-on-terrorCheney gets upset and explores options: www.salon.com/2007/09/19/iran_2/Oops! Huckabee today: www.timesofisrael.com/huckabee-iran-is-a-snake-that-must-be-killed-before-it-bites/ |
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on Apr 22, 2015 8:34:13 GMT -8
Excellent writeup.
George W and his profiteering numnutz advisors got us deep into a mess with no end. I personally feel GW and his ilk should be spending a long time in prison for what he's cost the country. Especially feel for the vets waiting in line at the VA. If nothing else GW should be sentenced to volunteering at the VA for the rest of his life.
I voted for O thinking he would get us out of meddling in the middle East. Seems he's buckled to our military establishment paranoia machine.
With all our problems at home, especially with securing our own borders, we are mired into spending billions in a god forsaken land, when we should be spending on building anti missile domes over our cities and securing our borders.
My only solace is for us little guys to rise up go to the polls and vote in Hillary and keep the right wing paranoia machine at bay for 8 yrs. God help us.
from my GS3
|
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on Apr 22, 2015 8:49:59 GMT -8
and keep the right wing paranoia machine at bay for 8 yrs. God help us. Hope so, but I'm not entirely sure about this. In the past she's been against talks with Iran and been for the Iraq War... kinda just going with the wind. I'm not sure anyone even knows what her foreign policy views are. In 2008, she had a foreign policy group that included plenty of questionable advisors: Madeline Albright, Martin Indyk, Kurt Campbell... And in reality the Clinton and Bush families have considerable political overlap. |
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on Apr 22, 2015 9:00:26 GMT -8
Maybe so but she's the only one with the clout to beat the hard right. I don't think the polls are lying.
from my GS3
|
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Apr 27, 2015 17:55:08 GMT -8
And the subject changes when anyone presents the fact that Iran targets our folks as far back as Beirut and similarly with the assault on our Tehran Embassy and hostages through our presence in Iraq. Nearly every Shi'a/Hezbollah attack on western targets can be traced directly to Iran's IRGC-Quds Force. We conveniently ignore that or excuse it.
Step back from the talking points and look at reality. They are trying to kill our people.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on May 1, 2015 22:36:35 GMT -8
I believe the Bill Clinton negotiated a Nuke treaty with N Korea that would keep them from getting bomb like devices. I also believe the same person who was lead negotiator for B C, is the current lead in the Iran negotiations. I wonder if she will have the same "success"?
Some smart people believe our president has one of two ideas regarding Iran. One, move to see that they are the hegemon in the middle east. This may have begun all the way back to the lack of support of the Green revolution. Or two, he simply wants to leave (pull out of) the entire region.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2015 7:41:54 GMT -8
I find it very difficult to take seriously anyone who thinks that it's OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, for any reason. It used to be at one time in this country the Left hated nuclear weapons and wanted them banned from the face of the earth. Now, it seems they're OK with nuclear weapons as long as he weapons are in the hands of the enemies of the west and are pointed at the US and Israel.
I think the only regret that people like the OP have about the situation is that Iran has yet to develop a weapon that will only kill Republicans, who they consider to be the real source of evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 2, 2015 13:14:10 GMT -8
Well, we see how successful that Korea thing has worked out. We have a nitwit in North Korea with the bomb. Are we soon to have a radical terrorist with the bomb in Iran?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 11, 2015 12:17:29 GMT -8
Well, we see how successful that Korea thing has worked out. We have a nitwit in North Korea with the bomb. Are we soon to have a radical terrorist with the bomb in Iran? Not only does the nitwit have a bomb, he is also developing missiles capable of delivering same to the shores of the U.S.A. As for Iran, there are some in this country who think that a nuclear Iran wouldn't be that bad since we would be able to deter them from using nukes as we deterred the Russians during the Cold War. First of all, with Iran you never know whether good sense will trump religious fanaticism. But that may not be the worst threat of a nuclear Iran. Once they have nukes, the Mullahs will be able to work their will in the Middle East with much greater ease than is now the case. For one thing, they would be able to enable their proxy terrorist groups to attack Israel even more than before. with military counter measures against Iran pretty much off the table. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 13, 2015 17:02:46 GMT -8
Here's a thought. Not a pleasant one, I'm afraid. So far, Israel has won every war against the Arabs who are determined to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews there. We have never had to face the prospect of a war in which Israel is facing immanent defeat. Defeat in such a war would almost certainly mean the deaths of millions of Jews. If such a thing were to happen on Barack Obama's watch, what would he do? I hope neither he nor any U.S. President ever faces such a dilemma. I think I know what Reagan would have done, or what a President Cruz, Rubio, or Walker would do. Massive U.S. military intervention and the secret promise that our use of nuclear weapons would suddenly be back on the table. But Obama? Or H. Clinton? Or a Bill de Blasio? I just don't know.
Here's another piece of the puzzle. U.S. military strength has not been this low in many, many years. If another eight years of U.S. military retrenchment weakens our forces even further, it might be the case that our President, whoever he or she may be, would suddenly find it difficult to react effectively in such a case. Hope that never happens.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 14, 2015 7:15:36 GMT -8
Here's a thought. Not a pleasant one, I'm afraid. So far, Israel has won every war against the Arabs who are determined to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews there. We have never had to face the prospect of a war in which Israel is facing immanent defeat. Defeat in such a war would almost certainly mean the deaths of millions of Jews. If such a thing were to happen on Barack Obama's watch, what would he do? I hope neither he nor any U.S. President ever faces such a dilemma. I think I know what Reagan would have done, or what a President Cruz, Rubio, or Walker would do. Massive U.S. military intervention and the secret promise that our use of nuclear weapons would suddenly be back on the table. But Obama? Or H. Clinton? Or a Bill de Blasio? I just don't know. Here's another piece of the puzzle. U.S. military strength has not been this low in many, many years. If another eight years of U.S. military retrenchment weakens our forces even further, it might be the case that our President, whoever he or she may be, would suddenly find it difficult to react effectively in such a case. Hope that never happens. AzWm All very troubling of course. What is even more troubling is that many voters do not consider things like that nearly as important as wealth/income redistribution or false issues like climate change (formerly global warming). |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 14, 2015 10:28:38 GMT -8
Here's a thought. Not a pleasant one, I'm afraid. So far, Israel has won every war against the Arabs who are determined to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews there. We have never had to face the prospect of a war in which Israel is facing immanent defeat. Defeat in such a war would almost certainly mean the deaths of millions of Jews. If such a thing were to happen on Barack Obama's watch, what would he do? I hope neither he nor any U.S. President ever faces such a dilemma. I think I know what Reagan would have done, or what a President Cruz, Rubio, or Walker would do. Massive U.S. military intervention and the secret promise that our use of nuclear weapons would suddenly be back on the table. But Obama? Or H. Clinton? Or a Bill de Blasio? I just don't know. Here's another piece of the puzzle. U.S. military strength has not been this low in many, many years. If another eight years of U.S. military retrenchment weakens our forces even further, it might be the case that our President, whoever he or she may be, would suddenly find it difficult to react effectively in such a case. Hope that never happens. AzWm All very troubling of course. What is even more troubling is that many voters do not consider things like that nearly as important as wealth/income redistribution or false issues like climate change (formerly global warming). BS. You don't KNOW what any of the gentlemen you mention WOULD do. You THINK you know but you DON'T. You wouldn't know until it happens. And, oh, by the way Israel has the capability to send the entire Arab world back to the stone age if they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on May 14, 2015 12:13:41 GMT -8
It's foolish for anyone to think they would come out on top of a Nuclear war. It would be the end of all of us. Nuclear disarmament is our only hope of survival. But it's against human nature, so we're all doomed.
I may have another 20 years so I'll pray it won't happen in my lifetime.
from my GS3
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 14, 2015 13:04:04 GMT -8
All very troubling of course. What is even more troubling is that many voters do not consider things like that nearly as important as wealth/income redistribution or false issues like climate change (formerly global warming). BS. You don't KNOW what any of the gentlemen you mention WOULD do. You THINK you know but you DON'T. You wouldn't know until it happens. And, oh, by the way Israel has the capability to send the entire Arab world back to the stone age if they wish. Who you talkin' to Willis? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 14, 2015 13:17:56 GMT -8
BS. You don't KNOW what any of the gentlemen you mention WOULD do. You THINK you know but you DON'T. You wouldn't know until it happens. And, oh, by the way Israel has the capability to send the entire Arab world back to the stone age if they wish. Who you talkin' to Willis? Both of you. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 15, 2015 21:36:57 GMT -8
All very troubling of course. What is even more troubling is that many voters do not consider things like that nearly as important as wealth/income redistribution or false issues like climate change (formerly global warming). BS. You don't KNOW what any of the gentlemen you mention WOULD do. You THINK you know but you DON'T. You wouldn't know until it happens. And, oh, by the way Israel has the capability to send the entire Arab world back to the stone age if they wish. Well, in case you missed the point, I was indeed wondering what Obama (or in fact any other President in the same circumstance) would do if Israel were in danger of losing a ground war to hostile Arab forces. In other words, it was a genuine question. A question for exactly the same reason you put forward; namely, that we can't know what would happen until it happens.
As for Israel using nukes, that factor only complicates the issue. First of all, a ground assault on Israel would NOT involve nukes used against that country. If any hostile force in the Middle East had nukes and were prepared to use them, that's just what they would do. Why bother with a costly and protracted ground campaign when you can pretty much wipe out the Jewish state with a few missiles? (And that's the problem with allowing Iran to get nukes, which is exactly what Obama's diplomatic efforts amount to. I strongly suspect that Obama knows full well that the agreement they are talking about at best would delay the development of the Iranian nuclear weapons program a bit. Well, why not? If the Iranian program achieves success five or ten years from now, Mr. Obama will be long gone from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.)
Okay, back to the ground war against Israel that I am positing. Israel is not very big, and it would wouldn't take long to overrun the country. One of the reasons that Soviet Russia could withstand devastatingly high losses to the Germans in 1941 was that the country was so darned big. You could give up over 500 miles of territory (from the point in Poland at which that country had been partitioned between Germany and the USSR in 1939 all the way to the gates of Moscow and still have massive territory to all back on.) Or take the example of Sherman's March to the Sea in 1864. It's 248 miles from Atlanta to Savannah. On the other hand, Israel is only 85 miles wide at it widest part, and only about TWENTY MILES WIDE AT ITS NARROWEST!
So, in a sense, it's all or nothing for Israel in a war against Arab foes. Against whom would Israel use nukes if they were losing? Cairo? Damascus? Bagdad? Those cities, or perhaps others, could be obliterated, yes. But a ground army in the process of overwhelming Israeli forces would still be able to destroy all of Israel. How abut dropping nukes on those Arab forces at the gates of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Those might be destroyed, but so would Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Not much of a bargain, unless the goal was another Masada.
So we have President X, awakened at 3AM to get a call from the Prime Minister of Israel. We can't hold out much longer, the PM says. If you can't do something to relieve us immediately, we will have to use nukes. What does the President do? No U.S. President is going say, Well, we are war-weary and you are just going to have to do what you must. Well, maybe I shouldn't say NO U.S. President. I'm just not sure what a President Warren or a President Sanders, or even a President Rand would do. And whether the state of the U.S. military has eroded even more than it by now has would also be a factor. In any case, U.S. air power would probably not be enough. Remember that we were not able to send personnel to Benghazi, not even a company of Marines. Would we have enough forces in the Med to send a brigade or even a regiment?
Clearly, the fact that the U.S. under the current administration has largely bowed out of the Middle East leaves us poorly positioned to head off trouble there before it reaches the breaking point. We should not forget that Israel is strong enough to defend itself, or at least it has been so far. But it's no good to lose all the battles except the last one.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 15, 2015 21:45:00 GMT -8
It's foolish for anyone to think they would come out on top of a Nuclear war. It would be the end of all of us. Nuclear disarmament is our only hope of survival. But it's against human nature, so we're all doomed. I may have another 20 years so I'll pray it won't happen in my lifetime. from my GS3 I hate to be pessimistic, but it is not a stretch to speculate that sooner or later, somebody is going to use nukes. Could be soon, could be a century from now. On the other hand, if there were no nukes, lots more conventional wars might well break out. If country A is relatively small, and country B is large and hostile, defeating A would be pretty easy. But if A has nukes, well that's a different story. Let's say that in 1939 Poland had a bunch of atom bombs. Let's further assume that everybody knew how devastating nuclear weapons are. Now, in that scenario, do you think that Hitler would have attacked Poland? No likely. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 19, 2015 10:18:06 GMT -8
The only way Israel loses a ground war, they have a lot of experience remember, is if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey all invade at the same time. They have beaten Egypt at least three times when Egypt had the largest well trained army in the middle east. Both Saudi and Turkey have zero experience in fighting a protracted ground war. So even against all three Israel stands a good chance.
|
|
pepe
New Recruit
Posts: 10 
|
Post by pepe on Jun 19, 2015 10:05:19 GMT -8
Iran wont go for a bomb because all the Arab states, Turkey, and others will end up getting one. Iran with a few small nukes would be completely annhialted in any nuclear exchange with any nation possessing dozens, if not hundreds of advanced nukes. Iran has the upper hand in the region right now, a nuclear device will only be a negative for them.
The Iranian government has its pitfalls, but they are not irrational. They are doing the heavy lifting in fighting IS, and they are the only country in that entire region which has a moderate Western friendly populace. The Iranians hate the Chinese, Arabs, and Russians. The US can take an advantage of this and bring Iran onto our side and use them to push the Western agenda like during the Shah´s time.
War is a bad option. Invading and occupying Iran will be very, very, very costly. We would lose considerable international clout if we did this, and the insurgency would be several factors more intense than anything we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also China and Russia would be the winners, because Russia will benefit from high oil prices and the utter destruction of its histroical Persian rival, and China for its part can justify its agressive moves as "defensive" to the rest of the world. Given what America has been doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 19, 2015 13:21:01 GMT -8
Iran wont go for a bomb because all the Arab states, Turkey, and others will end up getting one. Iran with a few small nukes would be completely annhialted in any nuclear exchange with any nation possessing dozens, if not hundreds of advanced nukes. Iran has the upper hand in the region right now, a nuclear device will only be a negative for them. The Iranian government has its pitfalls, but they are not irrational. They are doing the heavy lifting in fighting IS, and they are the only country in that entire region which has a moderate Western friendly populace. The Iranians hate the Chinese, Arabs, and Russians. The US can take an advantage of this and bring Iran onto our side and use them to push the Western agenda like during the Shah´s time. War is a bad option. Invading and occupying Iran will be very, very, very costly. We would lose considerable international clout if we did this, and the insurgency would be several factors more intense than anything we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also China and Russia would be the winners, because Russia will benefit from high oil prices and the utter destruction of its histroical Persian rival, and China for its part can justify its agressive moves as "defensive" to the rest of the world. Given what America has been doing. I agree with what you are saying but the only way it would work is for the Iranians to get rid of the crazy mullahs first. |
|
