Thread: Is Obama Bluffing?

Originally Posted by Helix

The Iranian nuclear program is funded by oil sales.

To reduce their domestic dependance on oil.

Originally Posted by sharon

Israel has been a terrible ally and is of no strategic importance to the US.

Israels' national rapid response teams were in the air and headed towards New York on 9/11 before ours were. When we went into Kuwait in 1991, Saddam Hussein sent SCUD after SCUD into their cities to kill their children in the streets and they held their fire and did not retaliate - willingly exposing their own lives because we asked them to. Their intelligence gathering operations are second to none in a region where we are often operating blind. They offer the only pocket of stability in a vital region, and the alliance between them and us is probably second in importance only to our alliance with Britain - and as that nation fades, Israel will become more important, as will Australia, Singapore, and India.

If they were attacked by Iran, we should defend them (that's quite a fantasy) but otherwise there is no reason for the US to be goaded into a war by Bibi Netanyahu.

Under most administrations I would agree that we likely would defend them. Under this one I sadly doubt it. Not without reason did Kissinger and other observors note the current danger of being a US Ally.

Originally Posted by Kali

I am sick of us being the "save the world" gov. Save our damn country and then I will jump back on the bandwagonof trying to save the damn world.

what a fascinating notion - the US is not effected by events overseas. So what do you suggest we do for an economy once the current one is destroyed following the collapse of world wide trade? Back to subsistence farming, eh?

Originally Posted by MKULTRABOY

To reduce their domestic dependance on oil.

no. they have lots of oil. their critical vulnerability is the lack of ability to make gasoline.

Originally Posted by cpwill

what a fascinating duo of assumptions.

Allow me to fill in some other interesting predictions that use the same logic:

"Iran will never send members of its' military to Iraq and Afghanistan to Kill Americans, because it knows that the US Military would respond in kind."
"Iran would never plan to assassinate a Saudi Arabian Ambassador on US Soil because it knows that the backlash would be too great."
"Iran would never claim wiping Israel off the face of the planet as an intention because it knows that it lacks the capability and would lose international good will for doing so."


What in the world makes you think that Iranian leadership believes that they would receive a nuclear response if Israel was wiped out in a successful First Strike that could be successfully pinned on a proxy such as, (say) Hezbollah? Do you really think that the US would nuke Iran? That Obama would nuke Iran post facto? Yeesh, and they say that neocons are always imposing their cultural assuptions on others.

When you think of how Iranians view foreigners, think about a pack of wolves. When we try to negotiate and offer compromise, they interpret that as us turning over on our back and offering our belly. It demonstrates to them that they are A) justified in what they are doing and B) therefore need not worry about response from us. We are, after all, too weak and afraid to wish to do anything. That is why they stopped their development (and it is why Libya gave up its WMD's alltogether) after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and started it up again after the development of a major anti-war movement here in the States. They perceive that we lack the will to stop them.



I would hope so - it's just that I see no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, and plenty that argues against it.

What kind of evidence would you need to support the claim that Obama would strike Iran if necessary? A crystal ball? A psychic? Obama is smart. He understands using military action is an expense, something our previous president (im not going to name names... but his middle initial was W.) failed to understand which lead to our current economic recession. There are plenty of ways to attack a country without using military action, such as sanctions. Obama's foreign policy is his strong attribute and I really don't think war will emerge with this iran situation. Iran's leader is not crazy, he just wants his country to be recognized as an emerging power. Obama is the President of the United States, he will strike if necessary. I have no idea how you could draw the conclusion otherwise unless you are using "feelings" about our president instead of facts to base your decisions.

Originally Posted by cpwill

I've been pretty busy as of late, and only catch bits and pieces. If he said he was willing to bomb Iran to keep them from passing a threshold, all well and good. I'm just relatively suspicious that the actual policy is "delay the decision as to whether or not we are at that threshold until after the election, and hope that that works"; which would go not a little way towards explaining why the White House seeks to argue for pushing that threshold as far to the right as possible.

Obama Speech Comments:

"Obama said Sunday he too would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and would act -- with military force, if necessary -- to prevent that from happening.

But "as president and commander in chief, I have a deeply held preference for peace over war," he said, and "I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy -- backed by pressure -- to succeed.

"The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program."

At the same time, he said Iranian leaders "should understand that I do not have a policy of containment -- I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Containment was a U.S. Cold War policy to prevent the spread of Soviet communism. It represented a middle ground between detente, or developing working relationships with governments, and "rollback," or forcing change in major foreign-government policies, often by replacing a ruling regime.

Obama said the United States would "do what it takes to preserve Israel's qualitative military edge -- because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

Netanyahu, who was on a state visit to Canada before traveling to Washington, responded quickly to Obama's speech.

"I appreciated the fact that he said Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat," Netanyahu told reporters in Ottawa, Ontario.

"I appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and that all options are on the table. I also appreciated the fact that he made clear that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option."

Read more: Obama on Iran: 'Speak softly, carry stick' - UPI.com

Even as somebody who prefers offensive military strategy I just can't get behind threats of military strikes on Iran. Eventually we've got to force diplomacy to work. We can't afford to keep spending money on strikes which merely piss people off. It's like shooting a beehive with a bb gun.

Personally, I don't give a damn about Israel, I think that if we're going to bomb something, we ought to bomb Jerusalem and get rid of the religious reasons for this asinine conflict. Screw the Christians, Jews and Muslims. The only reason we've become a target of the Middle East is because we won't leave them alone. Heck, we all know why Iran wants a nuke, it's a guarantee that the U.S. won't fly over there and start bombing. We only attack people who can't adequately fight back, we never go attack real threats, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why? They have nukes. Yet all of the 9/11 bombers came from those two countries. Go figure.

If the Muslim world wants to take Israel out, so be it. Nobody has a "right" to exist. If they can't fight their own battles, they haven't earned it.

Originally Posted by Cephus

If the Muslim world wants to take Israel out, so be it. Nobody has a "right" to exist. If they can't fight their own battles, they haven't earned it.

Hell man- when they have earned it, the rest of the region cries like babies and craps on themselves.

Originally Posted by lizzie

Hell man- when they have earned it, the rest of the region cries like babies and craps on themselves.

They earned it? You mean we handed it to them on a ****ing silver platter.