Voting Obama has saved your lives

[U2Edge]

The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.
No War means no dead Americans in body bags.

Be thankful for Obama's second term.

Peace be upon the world.

So what are the chances that Iran will now get a nuclear weapon?

What are the consequences for the region and the world of Iran armed with nuclear weapons?

How many more states will attempt to get nuclear weapons once Iran has them?

What are the chances of the actual use of nuclear weapons with a greater number of nuclear weapons states whether the use was intended or accidental?

What type of casualties do you think the world would see with the detonation of nuclear weapons in one or more countries?

Yup. We all would like a world where only the US has the bomb. Just as the wheel technology spread around the world then the computer so will the bomb. Not that I want nut jobs in Russia, China or North Korea to get it but eventually technology spreads. The 67 year gap amazes me and has to be a testament to the CIA, Obama, Bush, Carter, all of them.

So saying what we want aside, what would you do as President?

Thanks to the efforts of the United States and its allies, many countries that have long had the capability to develop nuclear weapons have not done so. Non-proliferation efforts make the world a safer place. Most countries on the planet probably have the capability to make the mustard gas that was used for the first time on the battle field in 1915, but they don't.

So the simple spread of technology is no excuse for letting Iran or others obtain nuclear weapons.

Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or other WMD should not be feared as much as Saddam possessing such capabilities. Saddam was a proven international outlaw with his attacks and invasions of four neighboring countries and his annexation of Kuwait in 1990, the first annexation of another country since Adolf Hitler did so in the 1940s. Then there was Saddam's extensive use of WMD on the battlefield against other countries as well as against his own people. It was a great thing for the world that Saddam was removed from power in 2003.

Iran on the other hand has never been nearly as bold or bad as Saddam was in his relations with other countries. They have indeed had a far more conservative approach and to the degree that they have acted aggressively, they have only done so through proxy's like Hezbollah.

That being said, military action against Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power must remain an option. In this case it is hard to say whether the cost of military action would be more or less than the cost of no military action. Is it possible to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons without military action? Would military action prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Airstrikes might prevent Iran, at least temporarily, from obtaining nuclear weapons. But the only sure way military action could be effective would be through invasion and regime removal, a far more costly effort than airstrikes, and most likely a more costly effort than Iraq, given Iran's much larger size in both population and geography.

Mitt Romney and Obama's position on this is not very far apart despite what their compaigns and others would suggest. Both think that military action must remain an option for the United States in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I'm not sure what the best course of action is in this particular case. Its more difficult to judge than the case with Saddam. I will say that the airstrike option, even if successful would only set Iran back about 4 years. But its easier for the President to launch and pay for airstrikes. An invasion is something that I don't think congress would approve of given the war fatigued public and the judgements about whether it would be worth it in this particular case or not. Obama has certainly ruled that option out given that he is cutting US active Army Combat brigades from 45 down to 32. But airstrikes are still on the table with Obama.

Ultimately, I think Obama is going to punt on this one and leave this question up to the next administration that will take office on January 20, 2017.

 

[Indofred]

The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.
No War means no dead Americans in body bags.

Be thankful for Obama's second term.

Peace be upon the world.

So what are the chances that Iran will now get a nuclear weapon?

What are the consequences for the region and the world of Iran armed with nuclear weapons?

How many more states will attempt to get nuclear weapons once Iran has them?

What are the chances of the actual use of nuclear weapons with a greater number of nuclear weapons states whether the use was intended or accidental?

What type of casualties do you think the world would see with the detonation of nuclear weapons in one or more countries?

From chances of Iran getting nukes....

Exactly the same as they have been since Israel started moaning about Iran. Israel warned that Iran would have the 'bomb' and an ICBM capable of hitting America but that was back in 1990.
A classic case of crying wolf.

Should a nuclear armed Iran appear, Israel could be in serious trouble as the balance of power would change. I'm unsure how this would be a bad thing. I would be concerned if Iran actually used a bomb but I don't see it as they would be wiped out as well. Even that bunch of idiots aren't that stupid.

Other states already have the bomb and more will get it regardless of Iran going nuclear.

The chances of nuclear war are always way too great. What was that about Cuba?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.

I think you're in for a rude awakening. Obama hasn't shown himself to be much less of a warmonger than Bush.

 

[Katzndogz]

Iran has never changed their mind. If Israel attacks them, they will attack us. There is no way we can stop obamamericans from coming home on body bags even of obama decides not to defend the country.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It saves your life in the same way as voting Hugo Chavez does! What a choice.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Guys, I watched the last foreign policy debate and found Romney's ability to criticize Obama's foreign policy then say he would do the same thing amazing. Not that many voted on foreign policy this time anyways.

Ok, so if you were in charge:

How would you keep Iran from getting the bomb? This better be good. We have had it for 67 years and just like the wheel technology spreads.

Work with the Mossad to put "suitcase nukes" on their research sites. Pop one off...whoops, look,s like the Iranians really screwed up!

We have 100+ embassies I venture to say and 1/2 the world sucks. What is your security plan for them?

A 100 kiloton nuclear device (a cobalt-jacketed dirty nuke) in the subbasement. If the Embassy is ever overrun, detonate it.

 

[TNHarley]

Tell that to the 9 people that are losing their jobs here Dec 31st.

 

[U2Edge]

The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.
No War means no dead Americans in body bags.

Be thankful for Obama's second term.

Peace be upon the world.

So what are the chances that Iran will now get a nuclear weapon?

What are the consequences for the region and the world of Iran armed with nuclear weapons?

How many more states will attempt to get nuclear weapons once Iran has them?

What are the chances of the actual use of nuclear weapons with a greater number of nuclear weapons states whether the use was intended or accidental?

What type of casualties do you think the world would see with the detonation of nuclear weapons in one or more countries?

From chances of Iran getting nukes....

Exactly the same as they have been since Israel started moaning about Iran. Israel warned that Iran would have the 'bomb' and an ICBM capable of hitting America but that was back in 1990.
A classic case of crying wolf.

Should a nuclear armed Iran appear, Israel could be in serious trouble as the balance of power would change. I'm unsure how this would be a bad thing. I would be concerned if Iran actually used a bomb but I don't see it as they would be wiped out as well. Even that bunch of idiots aren't that stupid.

Other states already have the bomb and more will get it regardless of Iran going nuclear.

The chances of nuclear war are always way too great. What was that about Cuba?

I've never seen or heard anyone claiming even today that Iran was close to having an ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the United States. That might be a future possiblity, but thats never been a previously stated worry and is not what Israel and the United States are concerned about at the moment let alone back in 1990. They are concerned about Iran developing a simple nuclear weapon period, even if the means of delivery or limited.

It would be wonderful if the dangers of Iran with a nuclear weapon could simply be reduced or eliminated by the threat of massive retaliation, but they won't. You see the danger is not that Iran would actually use the nuclear weapon, but that it would feel that with a nuclear weapon, others would not dare challenge them on foreign policy and national security issues. A nuclear weapon could be a means to greater Iranian military adventurism in the middle east and Persian Gulf, not with nuclear weapons, but with conventional weapons. The nuclear weapons acting as a deterent to other countries intervening or stopping Iranian military adventurism.

Another problem that nuclear weapons presents is that Iran may launch an all out nuclear attack, on Israel or another nation, not because they wanted to, but because they mistakenly believed they were under attack and that their nuclear weapons were about to be destroyed. The use them or lose them scenario sets in and what was thought to be a first strike on Iranian nuclear missiles, is in fact a computer mistake, the launch of a statelite or the failed launch of a satelite in to space. The travel time for missiles launched between Israel and Iran is only a matter of minutes. Very little time with in which to make decisions of such magnitude. The pressure to launch in order to avoid the loss of ones nuclear deterent through a first strike will be intense. No one would want to suffer such destruction and then have what was left of the country subject to nuclear blackmail by the other country that was still armed.

The US and the Soviet Union survived the Cold War, but that does not mean that the threat of war especially nuclear war was not real. There were many situation and scenario's that could have spiraled out of control that could have led to nuclear war. The USA and Soviet Union developed measures to try and prevent mistakes as well as a hotline between the Moscow and Washington DC. The idea that there would be the same level of cooperation between Iran and Israel on nuclear matters seems absurd. Even with all that cooperation, it did not eliminate the threat or possiblity of nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War.

So Iranian nuclear weapons are not going to make the world safer. Its not going to establish some balance of power between Iran and Israel. In fact, the risk of war between both states will increase.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.
No War means no dead Americans in body bags.

Be thankful for Obama's second term.

Peace be upon the world.

Yes, a nuclear armed Iran is a Godsend.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Calm Before the Jihadi Storm

June 18, 2013 By Raymond Ibrahim

...

But if Reagan unwittingly helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create al-Qaeda cells in some of the most important Islamic nations.

He is doing this by helping get rid of those Arab autocrats effective at suppressing jihadis (even if for selfish reasons), while empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in hiding.

And all in the name of the “Arab Spring” and “democracy.”

In Egypt, Obama threw Mubarak, America’s chief Mideast ally for three decades, under the bus, and cozied up to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s government is today overrun with Islamists, many who share al-Qaeda’s radical worldview. Several of these new policymakers—including President Morsi himself—were imprisoned under Mubarak, not, as the Western media portray, because they were freedom-loving rebels, but because they were, and are, Sharia-loving radicals trying to transform Egypt into an Islamist state.

...

Speaking of foreign policy, if Reagan supported the jihadis to combat the U.S.S.R—a hostile super-power—why is Obama supporting the jihadis? What exactly does America have to gain by propping up jihadis in some of the most strategic Arab nations?

In short, just as it was before 9/11, when the jihadi storm eventually does break out—and it will, it’s a matter of time—those American politicians who helped empower it, chief among them Obama, will be long gone, and the talking heads will again be stupidly asking “What happened?” “Who knew?” Why do they hate us?”

Except then it will be too late.

The Calm Before the Jihadi Storm | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Freewill]

The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.
No War means no dead Americans in body bags.

Be thankful for Obama's second term.

Peace be upon the world.

Progressives always seem to get the real definition of peace wrong. Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the resolution of conflict. All we have now is a cease-fire.

I'm British and we aren't at war with France. We aren't actually at peace, just not fighting.
I fully understand the definition and know just as well, Romney would have brought war.
I'm hoping Obama gets his finger out of is arse and does something more positive.

What war would have Romney brought? A war against an country that has vowed to wipe out Israel and is too unstable to have nuclear weapons to accomplish that goal. I suppose you and your Monk friends will tell us that Iran wants nukes for peaceful uses.

You and your Monk friends need to quit reading the Hindu Times. Obama has brought war and destruction to the ME. The drone program alone has killed hundreds if not thousand in the ME. Never mind that backing Obama has given to uprisings throughout the ME. Apparently you and your Monk friends could care less about brown skinned people being killed via drone. Apparently you and your Monk friends would rather continue the lies about Romney and they are nothing but lies.

 

[Geaux4it]

The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.
No War means no dead Americans in body bags.

Be thankful for Obama's second term.

Peace be upon the world.

Como?

-Geaux