Time to attack iran

[Shogun]

we are already paying for our quickness to "be competitive" with slave labor. People find excuses when they need them. The mythical free market is too theoretical to ever be reality. There is no sin in self preservation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While I don't agree that we should attack Iran or conduct regime change by force, I see no advantage to keeping one's head firmly planted in the sand. Your comment just smacks of isolationism. Although the neo-con extreme is bad, the isolationist extreme is just as bad.

I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism. I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being. I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran. We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons. All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.

But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.

I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.

President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me. For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition? I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.

 

[elvis]

I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism. I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being. I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran. We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons. All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.

But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.

I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.

President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me. For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition? I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.

When did Obama say that? Could he be preparing for war? If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.

But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.

I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.

President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me. For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition? I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.

When did Obama say that? Could he be preparing for war? If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.

He could be preparing for war or some other form of aggressive action. If he's not "reconciled" to a nuclear Iran then what is he planning to do about it? Certainly sounds like he plans on doing something.

 

[elvis]

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me. For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition? I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.

When did Obama say that? Could he be preparing for war? If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.

He could be preparing for war or some other form of aggressive action. If he's not "reconciled" to a nuclear Iran then what is he planning to do about it? Certainly sounds like he plans on doing something.

His stance seems very similar to Bush's.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism. I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being. I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran. We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons. All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.

But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.

I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.

President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me. For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition? I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.

Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.

If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.

When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.

You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?

That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When did Obama say that? Could he be preparing for war? If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.

He could be preparing for war or some other form of aggressive action. If he's not "reconciled" to a nuclear Iran then what is he planning to do about it? Certainly sounds like he plans on doing something.

His stance seems very similar to Bush's.

Which is precisely the problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.

But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.

I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.

President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me. For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition? I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.

Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.

If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.

When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.

You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?

That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.

Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.

An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.

Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that. We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later. The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me. For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition? I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.

Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.

If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.

When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.

You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?

That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.

Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.

An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.

Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that. We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later. The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.

Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?

Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?

Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?

 

[editec]

How many threads are you going to start on this? Why do you need two (so far) for the same information and updates to the same topic?

Here's your other "attack Iran" thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/80174-its-time-to-militarily-conduct-regime-change-in-iran.html

Because as I said in the first post, that thread turned into a flame throwing contest by various posters.

I would prefer that this one stay on topic.

Okay, I'll happily stay on topic.

Bad idea.

Next topic?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.

If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.

When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.

You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?

That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.

Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.

An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.

Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that. We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later. The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.

Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?

Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?

Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?

I have no problem with us defending ourselves, what I don't like is our military aggressiveness abroad.

Someone being convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons is not evidence.

I'm not advocating abandoning anybody. We can trade with them and be diplomatic, but why is it our responsibility to defend them forever? Not to mention that South Korea is far more developed than their northern neighbor and it's time they take over their own defense.

 

[Shogun]

someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.

how did that work out?

 

[elvis]

Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.

An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.

Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that. We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later. The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.

Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?

Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?

Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?

I have no problem with us defending ourselves, what I don't like is our military aggressiveness abroad.

Someone being convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons is not evidence.

I'm not advocating abandoning anybody. We can trade with them and be diplomatic, but why is it our responsibility to defend them forever? Not to mention that South Korea is far more developed than their northern neighbor and it's time they take over their own defense.

with as much as North Korea concentrates on military, I can't imagine the South could defend itself without U.S. assistance.

What kind of evidence does this "someone" have regarding the Iranian nuke question?

 

[elvis]

someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.

how did that work out?

what if the people who say Iran has no nukes are wrong? boy who cried wolf.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?

Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?

Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?

I have no problem with us defending ourselves, what I don't like is our military aggressiveness abroad.

Someone being convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons is not evidence.

I'm not advocating abandoning anybody. We can trade with them and be diplomatic, but why is it our responsibility to defend them forever? Not to mention that South Korea is far more developed than their northern neighbor and it's time they take over their own defense.

with as much as North Korea concentrates on military, I can't imagine the South could defend itself without U.S. assistance.

What kind of evidence does this "someone" have regarding the Iranian nuke question?

It's true that North Korea concentrates heavily on its military, but South Korea has much better technology and is far more developed than the North. I think they'd be able to defend themselves just fine.

I don't know the answer to that question, you'll have to ask Tech_Esq.

 

[Shogun]

someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.

how did that work out?

what if the people who say Iran has no nukes are wrong? boy who cried wolf.

then we act on evidence the minute assumptions and belief becomes proof beyond the same type of crap we saw happen in Iraq. Boy who cried wolf, indeed. What if, again, they are right and it turns out that the powers that be just want any excuse to attack iran similar to what hindsight showed us in iraq? This is the exact same excuse used during the run up to the invasion of iraq. Besides, i'm not of the mind that it takes a muslim to use nukes like a club anyway.

 

[scottpgreen]

John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not. I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.

He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for “rejecting American exceptionalism” and "sounding like a European". On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil. But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.

Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although ‘influence’ is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.

The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.

The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.

 

[eots]

John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not. I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.

He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for “rejecting American exceptionalism” and "sounding like a European". On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for ‘weak’, ‘effeminate’ and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil. But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.

Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although ‘influence’ is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.

The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.

The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.

and then I woke up and realized ..change and yes we can ..are just more empty hollow words scripted by hollywood writers ...that it was all a dream...and in reality it was the same old shit cake with different icing....



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvst]YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version[/ame]

 

[rhodescholar]

Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although ‘influence’ is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.

Mr. Bolton knows more about history than you ever will. And those of us who spent, uh, like the last 25 years living abroad know that he knows his shit and is in the right. How about you kid, what were you doing for the last 20-30 years?

This means acknowledging limits.

You mean accepting the garbage from ppl like Brent Scowcroft and other dimwit realists, who are willing to fudge the lines of tolerable behavior because the other party is "different," or was "colonized", or has some "cultural uniqueness," etc.

Spare me, its the same BS I've heard for decades, arabs, africans SE asians, and s americans cannot live in democracies, and we need to accept that. Bull-fucking-shit. The same dipshits who screech at the US for racist policies cannot see the inherent racist policies they seek to implement.

Bottom line: no I am not going to smear the lines and boundaries of acceptable behavior because some Washington hack sitting in the Foggy Bottom hole thinks that they need to protect "their relationships" and want to retain the status quo.

It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.

It was this same dementia which fought against Reagan's arms buildup in the 1980s, who wished for a quick US exit out of Viet Nam and got it, but thankfully, did not in Iraq. If the TV show doesn't end in a quick, neat 60 minute tie-up, then its cut and run, isn't it sweetie?

Amazing the same "progressives" - a misnomer if there ever was one - accuse neo-conservatives of being hollywood-ized, while they themselves worship at its alter of simple solutions and fudged moralities.

The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas.

What formula is that? Expectations that all men are equal, and have the same rights to liberty and freedom, that "realpolitik" trash wishes to throw by the wayside simply because it might upset their power structure?

How many State department assholes who worked in the middle east end up working for the saudis after their turgid careers end, after they've spent decades ensuring the current dictatorships there are never threatened, while doing NOTHING to assist these nations in the buildup of civil society?

It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups.

You are not fucking kidding. After 30 years of State Department crap, Bush finally said the status quo of supporting dictatorships that fund terrorism away from their countries as a means of buying themselves some breathing room are OVER, so fucking over.

The best thing that could possibly occur is to fire the entire State Dept., and bring in people who are willing to press for change.

It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.

Delivering? Are for fucking real? Where is this happening, what has he accomplished "diplomatically""?

Iran and N Korea are taking even harder lines than before, his European trips have been disasters, his russian trip did nothing, NATO did not agree to commit more troops to Afghanistan -- the only thing he has accomplished so far was done MILITARILY - the shooting of the 3 somalian pirates. So much for "diplomacy".

The only thing that is keeping people from beginning to question his persistent failings is the media, who is giving him a HUGE pass.

 

[Gunny]

Iran with the backing of the U.S tried that in the 1980's

It turned into a huge disaster.

I think the outcome today would be just as bad or even worse

Ah i remember the Col Ollie North's trials.

Weren't we selling weaponst to both sides. The iran-contra scandal.

We didn't sell weapons to Iraq, but when Iraq was losing badly, we did give them intelligence from our satellites and advice from our generals. When that turned the tide and Iraq was about to advance into Iran, we sold Iran weapons through Israel, of all places, in order to hold Saddam back. The US strategy was to maintain the balance of power in the Gulf region, and not to allow either Iraq or Iran to become dominant.

We gave the weapons to Iran through an intermediary for its influence in the release of some hostages. Helping Iran and/or giving a shit whether or not Saddam was kicking Iran's ass had no part in the play.