Two Obamas?

[Dragline]

I'm going to ignore the fact that a couple people here are posting opinions without knowing a single thing about, or having any understanding of the issues involved in our conflict in the middle East - that is abundantly clear and I see no point in arguing with people not qualified to speak on the matter.

Kinda like when you said earlier we had no terror attacks under Bush since 9/11? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

That being said, I ask that the other reasonable people here not allow the Liberals to keep changing the subject.

This thread is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the Iraq war. This thread is about Obama's foreign policies being demonstrable failures.

What exactly are you complaining about? How are his policies a failure? Obamas foreign policy regarding the middle east especially are virtually mimicking that of Bush's. Isn't that what you want?

I actually hear Obama getting criticized by the left quit regularly for not sticking to his campaign pledges. Just because Obama is taking a path very similar to Bush's doesn't mean they are happy about it or think he is right.

Obama specifically stated in his own words that there is no global war on terror.

Obama said he would stop using the phrase war on terror, not that there wasn't one. Now I do think that was dumb. I couldn't give two shits about what phrase you give it. Call it the war against falafal and hummus eating assholes for all I care. I never signed a pledge to be PC.

 

[PadawanBater]

Obama said he would stop using the phrase war on terror, not that there wasn't one. Now I do think that was dumb. I couldn't give two shits about what phrase you give it. Call it the war against falafal and hummus eating assholes for all I care. I never signed a pledge to be PC.

I fuckin' LOL'd at that.

 

[RickWhite]

Iran: Obama said let's talk and reasonable. Ahmedinejad said no thanks. Iranians voted for a more reasonable guy but the pasadran and mullahs tried to rig the election. Now it actually looks like the islamic republic's day might be numbered. This didn't happen when we were being confrontational towards them when bush was pres. I'm not giving obama credit for what's going on over there, but his election and change in our attitude since have certainly had an impact on what's going on in iran.

It might be a little soon to declare failure, buddy. Undiebomber doesn't change that either....

Since you, unlike the others, actually made somewhat of an attempt to keep the conversation on topic I will answer your post.

2/3 of the Iranian population is under 30. The Iranian people are very pro-US. One of the main reasons is that Iran, not that long ago was one of the most Westernized countries in the region - this was when the Shaw was in power. Then Jimmy Carter helped the radicals overthrow the Shaw and put the Iatola in power. Why he did this is another subject. But, since the 70s the people of Iran have been pro-US and have been oppressed by the radicals.

Ahmedinijad is believed to have been a terrorist before gaining power. He is credited with pushing an old crippled man off of a ship to drown.

People who understand mid-East politics and who understand the minds of radicals know that diplomacy is a lost cause with men like Ahmedinijad. They also know that opening dialog with people suggests that they are worthy of such attention and it legitimizes them. If a raving lunatic from one of our prisons demanded to speak to the president, nobody would grant his request because the man isn't worthy of such attention. That is how terrorist thugs should be treated.

Another thing to understand about the minds of radicals is that they do not think like we do. Radical Muslims see only power, not justice. In Islam, everything happens according to the will of God. When Muslims are powerful, it is by the will of God. When infidels are powerful, it is seen as an insult to Islam and the opposite of what God wants. The fact that we are more powerful is an insult to Islam - whether or not we use that power justly or at all is irrelevant.

See, you Lefties need to disabuse yourself of the foolish notion that the radicals think like us and are concerned with justice. They hate us for what we are, not for what we do. You guys really need to think about this fact for a while. If you allow this fact to soak into your brain for a while, things will become more clear. The radicals will stop hating us if and only if they can subjugate us. Get it through your skull. You want proof? All over the world there are Mosques built on the ruins of Churches and Synagogues. This is meant to symbolize the domination of Islam over the infidels. The Dome of the Rock in Israel is one such place. In another, the tomb stones were stolen from an ancient Jewish cemetery and a latrine constructed from them. Many other historic Jewish sites have been desecrated by Muslims - but the opposite is not true. The Israelis are meticulous in preserving the historic sites of all faiths - this exemplifies the difference in thinking. Many of us remember the giant Buddha statues destroyed in Afghanistan for being "an offense to Islam." There are numerous others examples world wide - Spain is littered with them. All of these are symbols of Islam's dominance over the infidel.

But you see, I didn't learn this from reading opinion pieces on the internet, although I read many. I learned this sitting in a college classroom along with some of the major tenants of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. My professor held a PhD in religious studies from Yale. But I digress.

There is a consensus among people knowledgeable about such issues. The consensus is that talking to nut jobs like Ahmedinijad is pointless. Obama was not knowledgeable in such matters prior to his election, though he is now getting a crash course.

What I would like people to do, is to look at what happened and to think about what happened and why. Could it be that maybe the Conservatives who predicted what would happen down to the letter actually know what they are talking about? Could it be that maybe the Leftists who were adamant about talking to Ahmedinijad were clueless on this issue?

As I've pointed out the Iranians have been pro-US for a long time. Most do not want to get bombed and now that they see Obama going in that direction they are becoming understandably agitated. If you look at the issue clearly, the Obama candidacy was probably what kept them quiet this long - now that he has picked up a stick they are scared. That is all people respond to in that region.

See, what is happening is that Obama is getting a crash course on mid-East politics. He is now seeing that radical jihadists are a real threat; he is seeing that leaders like Ahmedinijad do not respond to diplomacy, they respond to force. And, he is seeing that the radicals will want to destroy us regardless of our foreign policies. He is beginning to see all of these things because he now has advisors who know a thing or two about these issues.

Obama, has been hit over the head with a big dose of reality. I am just wondering if the rest of you have.

 

[RickWhite]

Here is a video of Obama's opinions before and after regarding Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM&feature=related

Here is a very informative videos from a woman a Christian woman from Lebanon (formerly a Christian country) who spent her childhood in a bomb shelter - an amazing story. You can view her account at her website www.americancongressfortruth.org

By the way her history of Islam is EXACTLY what I have read in college and what I have heard repeated by many scholars.

This is 1 of 6. If you want a real understanding of Islam and mid-East politics, watch them all. This is real education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAVy2uz0mgA

 

[natrone23]

Hey rick where are all those Muslim refugees living in Lebanon from?

 

[RickWhite]

Hey rick where are all those Muslim refugees living in Lebanon from?

If you are referring to the Palestinians, they are the result of choosing war over peace, of Muslim aggression, and were deliberately created by the Muslims for use as cannon fodder against Israel.

A better question would be from where do all the Muslim, Israeli citizens who live in freedom in Israel, who vote in Israeli elections and who even hold political office in Israel come.

group A chose war, group B chose peace - you do the math.

But I ask that you do not attempt to change the subject. This is not a thread about the Arab, Israeli conflict.

 

[hanimmal]

As I've pointed out the Iranians have been pro-US for a long time. Most do not want to get bombed and now that they see Obama going in that direction they are becoming understandably agitated. If you look at the issue clearly, the Obama candidacy was probably what kept them quiet this long - now that he has picked up a stick they are scared. That is all people respond to in that region.

See, what is happening is that Obama is getting a crash course on mid-East politics. He is now seeing that radical jihadists are a real threat; he is seeing that leaders like Ahmedinijad do not respond to diplomacy, they respond to force. And, he is seeing that the radicals will want to destroy us regardless of our foreign policies. He is beginning to see all of these things because he now has advisors who know a thing or two about these issues.

Obama, has been hit over the head with a big dose of reality. I am just wondering if the rest of you have.

Good post RW. Some very good things in there.

But this last part seems to me to be a bit elitist of you.

Could it be that we on the left, do understand what you have written, but still understand the need to treat everyone like they are just as important and try to allow them to change their bad behaviors first? Then maybe go about it peacefully with economic sanctions, and when that fails and they try to attack us, we then step in and put them down?

Besides what people on the right seem to fail to get about this, is that there is not another country that can touch the full might of our military. If and when it is needed it can respond. Fighting locals that live in dirt huts is not something that we can fully unleash them on. But another country is a different matter.

We can defeat an enemy, but getting them to understand why is entirely different, that is why colonization doesn't ever end well.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Good post RW. Some very good things in there.

But this last part seems to me to be a bit elitist of you.

Could it be that we on the left, do understand what you have written, but still understand the need to treat everyone like they are just as important and try to allow them to change their bad behaviors first? Then maybe go about it peacefully with economic sanctions, and when that fails and they try to attack us, we then step in and put them down?

Besides what people on the right seem to fail to get about this, is that there is not another country that can touch the full might of our military. If and when it is needed it can respond. Fighting locals that live in dirt huts is not something that we can fully unleash them on. But another country is a different matter.

We can defeat an enemy, but getting them to understand why is entirely different, that is why colonization doesn't ever end well.

And don't forget, we should read the radical Islamists their miranda rights and bring them to US courts for trial. I just wish liberals would be honest and openly run on what you just said.

 

[abe23]

Since you, unlike the others, actually made somewhat of an attempt to keep the conversation on topic I will answer your post.

2/3 of the Iranian population is under 30. The Iranian people are very pro-US. One of the main reasons is that Iran, not that long ago was one of the most Westernized countries in the region - this was when the Shaw was in power. Then Jimmy Carter helped the radicals overthrow the Shaw and put the Iatola in power. Why he did this is another subject. But, since the 70s the people of Iran have been pro-US and have been oppressed by the radicals.

Ahmedinijad is believed to have been a terrorist before gaining power. He is credited with pushing an old crippled man off of a ship to drown.

People who understand mid-East politics and who understand the minds of radicals know that diplomacy is a lost cause with men like Ahmedinijad. They also know that opening dialog with people suggests that they are worthy of such attention and it legitimizes them. If a raving lunatic from one of our prisons demanded to speak to the president, nobody would grant his request because the man isn't worthy of such attention. That is how terrorist thugs should be treated.

Another thing to understand about the minds of radicals is that they do not think like we do. Radical Muslims see only power, not justice. In Islam, everything happens according to the will of God. When Muslims are powerful, it is by the will of God. When infidels are powerful, it is seen as an insult to Islam and the opposite of what God wants. The fact that we are more powerful is an insult to Islam - whether or not we use that power justly or at all is irrelevant.

See, you Lefties need to disabuse yourself of the foolish notion that the radicals think like us and are concerned with justice. They hate us for what we are, not for what we do. You guys really need to think about this fact for a while. If you allow this fact to soak into your brain for a while, things will become more clear. The radicals will stop hating us if and only if they can subjugate us. Get it through your skull. You want proof? All over the world there are Mosques built on the ruins of Churches and Synagogues. This is meant to symbolize the domination of Islam over the infidels. The Dome of the Rock in Israel is one such place. In another, the tomb stones were stolen from an ancient Jewish cemetery and a latrine constructed from them. Many other historic Jewish sites have been desecrated by Muslims - but the opposite is not true. The Israelis are meticulous in preserving the historic sites of all faiths - this exemplifies the difference in thinking. Many of us remember the giant Buddha statues destroyed in Afghanistan for being "an offense to Islam." There are numerous others examples world wide - Spain is littered with them. All of these are symbols of Islam's dominance over the infidel.

But you see, I didn't learn this from reading opinion pieces on the internet, although I read many. I learned this sitting in a college classroom along with some of the major tenants of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. My professor held a PhD in religious studies from Yale. But I digress.

There is a consensus among people knowledgeable about such issues. The consensus is that talking to nut jobs like Ahmedinijad is pointless. Obama was not knowledgeable in such matters prior to his election, though he is now getting a crash course.

What I would like people to do, is to look at what happened and to think about what happened and why. Could it be that maybe the Conservatives who predicted what would happen down to the letter actually know what they are talking about? Could it be that maybe the Leftists who were adamant about talking to Ahmedinijad were clueless on this issue?

As I've pointed out the Iranians have been pro-US for a long time. Most do not want to get bombed and now that they see Obama going in that direction they are becoming understandably agitated. If you look at the issue clearly, the Obama candidacy was probably what kept them quiet this long - now that he has picked up a stick they are scared. That is all people respond to in that region.

See, what is happening is that Obama is getting a crash course on mid-East politics. He is now seeing that radical jihadists are a real threat; he is seeing that leaders like Ahmedinijad do not respond to diplomacy, they respond to force. And, he is seeing that the radicals will want to destroy us regardless of our foreign policies. He is beginning to see all of these things because he now has advisors who know a thing or two about these issues.

Obama, has been hit over the head with a big dose of reality. I am just wondering if the rest of you have.

I don't want this to degenerate into another debate about religion and there are actually things I agree with you here. You are however completely talking around the point I was making...

First of all, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that iranians are "pro-US" and the mullahs and revolutionary guards are simply repressing their pro-western sentiment. Yes, most iranians are under 30, never lived under the shaw and mostly dislike the islamic republic but that doesn't mean they love america. The reason that the state department and other western foreign ministries have been virtually silent on the protests over there is because they don't want to taint the 'green' movement and open it up to accusations that they are sponsoring or inciting it. And our hawkish tone during the bush years actually played into the hardliners hands since it made their own posturing look warranted.
And that exactly was my point. Reaching out and extending a hand to the iranian leadership might have actually been a very shrewd move on obama's part (or a happy accident, true...) since it completely changed the internal dynamics in iran and gave the reformists a boost. We will have to see how it plays out but so far it's way more than bush's chest-thumping ever produced...

PS: Lebanon has always had a substantial christian minority but it hasn't been a "christian country" since the crusades. I actually have a few lebanese friends, both maronite and sunni, who would take (very vocal...) issue with your statement. But that's another topic.

 

[abe23]

If you are referring to the Palestinians, they are the result of choosing war over peace, of Muslim aggression, and were deliberately created by the Muslims for use as cannon fodder against Israel.

A better question would be from where do all the Muslim, Israeli citizens who live in freedom in Israel, who vote in Israeli elections and who even hold political office in Israel come.

group A chose war, group B chose peace - you do the math.

But I ask that you do not attempt to change the subject. This is not a thread about the Arab, Israeli conflict.

I do agree with you here, even if it is totally off topic.

Wars have consequences. After WW2, about 12 million germans had to leave what would become western poland and czechoslovakia. You don't hear them bitching getting their houses back 60 years later, especially since they started the war...

 

[hanimmal]

And don't forget, we should read the radical Islamists their miranda rights and bring them to US courts for trial. I just wish liberals would be honest and openly run on what you just said.

I agree, I feel the same way about how the right runs.

I was watching Colbert the other day, and although he is a comedian, I love how he disects what the argument about something should be.

He was talking to a guy about the full costs of pollution, and although the guy had laid out the very real and understandable look at the costs of it (like how much something costs to clean up should be looked at instead of just the costs to produce it). Colbert, Nevermind here is the link:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/261500/january-12-2010/raj-patel

I think it is a perfect example of how the right should talk about issues too, The treehugger had a very accurate and good idea, but when asked the simple questions he could not produce a answer, much less a good one. If we were all called out like this it would be a much better place, and we would be much better educated. Especially because Colbert can do it with a wink and a smile, and nobody loses their shit.

If the treehugger could actually answer those questions with as well thought out position that he does his argument then maybe he would have chance at seeing it become reality. But without it, it is half a good idea, which is basically worthless.

Much like most things politicians rant about, they are half baked ideas spurred on by the people they think will vote them back into office.

 

[RickWhite]

I don't want this to degenerate into another debate about religion and there are actually things I agree with you here. You are however completely talking around the point I was making...

First of all, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that iranians are "pro-US" and the mullahs and revolutionary guards are simply repressing their pro-western sentiment. Yes, most iranians are under 30, never lived under the shaw and mostly dislike the islamic republic but that doesn't mean they love america. The reason that the state department and other western foreign ministries have been virtually silent on the protests over there is because they don't want to taint the 'green' movement and open it up to accusations that they are sponsoring or inciting it. And our hawkish tone during the bush years actually played into the hardliners hands since it made their own posturing look warranted.
And that exactly was my point. Reaching out and extending a hand to the iranian leadership might have actually been a very shrewd move on obama's part (or a happy accident, true...) since it completely changed the internal dynamics in iran and gave the reformists a boost. We will have to see how it plays out but so far it's way more than bush's chest-thumping ever produced...

PS: Lebanon has always had a substantial christian minority but it hasn't been a "christian country" since the crusades. I actually have a few lebanese friends, both maronite and sunni, who would take (very vocal...) issue with your statement. But that's another topic.

Way wrong. The Iranian majority (who are Persian, not Arab BTW) is hugely pro-US. Those that can get away with it dress like Americans, they watch American TV with illegal satellite dishes, they do their hair like Americans and try to be like us in many ways. In fact, there have recently been reports of the Government cracking down on such practices because they fear their youth becoming too westernized.

Where do you get the notion that Obama's little dog and pony show changed the internal dynamics of Iran? The dynamics have always been exactly what they are now. What caused the unrest was the fraudulent re-election of a nut job who is trying his best to get his country bombed. Obama deserves no credit for any of this. The one thing Obama has going for him is that when he makes the inevitable choice to bomb Iran, he will not have half the country trying to pull the rug out from under him like Bush would have. But that is the situation he stepped into, not one he created.

No, all Obama managed to do is to give Ahmedinijad more time to build nukes and figure out how to protect them from an impending strike.

The only saving grace, is that Obama is finally starting to see the error of his ways. Now, we must hope he acts in time because if Israel is forced to act on their own, there is a good chance Iran will be able to mine the Straights of Hormuz cutting off all oil coming from the region. If this happens get ready for $10 per gallon gasoline.

And something tells me old Hugo Chavez isn't going to ramp up production to help us out. Turns out he doesn't like Obama any better than he liked bush. Evidently, he didn't get the memo about how Obama is supposed to make everyone like us.

 

[abe23]

Way wrong. The Iranian majority (who are Persian, not Arab BTW) is hugely pro-US. Those that can get away with it dress like Americans, they watch American TV with illegal satellite dishes, they do their hair like Americans and try to be like us in many ways. In fact, there have recently been reports of the Government cracking down on such practices because they fear their youth becoming too westernized.

Where do you get the notion that Obama's little dog and pony show changed the internal dynamics of Iran? The dynamics have always been exactly what they are now. What caused the unrest was the fraudulent re-election of a nut job who is trying his best to get his country bombed. Obama deserves no credit for any of this. The one thing Obama has going for him is that when he makes the inevitable choice to bomb Iran, he will not have half the country trying to pull the rug out from under him like Bush would have. But that is the situation he stepped into, not one he created.

No, all Obama managed to do is to give Ahmedinijad more time to build nukes and figure out how to protect them from an impending strike.

The only saving grace, is that Obama is finally starting to see the error of his ways. Now, we must hope he acts in time because if Israel is forced to act on their own, there is a good chance Iran will be able to mine the Straights of Hormuz cutting off all oil coming from the region. If this happens get ready for $10 per gallon gasoline.

And something tells me old Hugo Chavez isn't going to ramp up production to help us out. Turns out he doesn't like Obama any better than he liked bush. Evidently, he didn't get the memo about how Obama is supposed to make everyone like us.

"hugely" pro-US, huh ricky? Dude have you ever left the country? Just because people pirate our shitty movies doesn't mean they love us. Just because people in Tehran have satellite dishes and emulate american culture doesn't mean they want to be invaded. Also, most people have a more nuanced view of american power than "good" or "bad". Sure, a lot of people appreciate our ideals and want to copy our 'culture' the world over, but people in iran also remember mossadiq and us reinstating the shaw and supporting THAT repressive government. Not liking the mullah regime ≠ loving america.

The point was this and I will keep repeating until you stop talking around it: Rattling the drum got us nowhere with bush for 6 years or so of ahmedinejad. Within a year of obama getting elected, iranians elect a reformist government and the hardliners are forced to clumsily rig the election. Might be coincidence though, you're right. But why didn't happen in the previous election?

"the inevitable choice to bomb iran", huh? Yea, with the economy still mostly in the toilet and all the other shit we have going, what we need is to start another war. And believe me, even people who hate the mullahs and the islamic regime will line up right behind it if we attack them. The last 'inevitable' war has cost 4000 lives so far....but you obviously haven't learned very much from that.

 

[Illegal Smile]

"hugely" pro-US, huh ricky? Dude have you ever left the country? Just because people pirate our shitty movies doesn't mean they love us. Just because people in Tehran have satellite dishes and emulate american culture doesn't mean they want to be invaded. Also, most people have a more nuanced view of american power than "good" or "bad". Sure, a lot of people appreciate our ideals and want to copy our 'culture the world over', but people in iran also remember mossadiq and us reinstating the shaw and supporting THAT repressive government. Not liking the mullah regime ≠ loving america.

The point was this and I will keep repeating until you stop talking around it: Rattling the drum got us nowhere with bush for 6 years or so of ahmedinejad. Within a year of obama getting elected, iranians elect a reformist government and the hardliners are forced to clumsily rig the election. Might be coincidence though, you're right. But why didn't happen in the previous election?

"the inevitable choice to bomb iran", huh? Yea, with the economy still mostly in the toilet and all the other shit we have going, what we need is to start another war. And believe me, even people who hate the mullahs and the islamic regime will line up right behind it if we attack them. The last 'inevitable' war has cost 4000 lives so far....but you obviously haven't learned very much from that.

This is silly. I don't think anyone said they love us. What they love is the path the connected, globalized, democratic world is on. They want to be on that path too. They want prosperity and better lives for their children. They don't want to be vaporized.

That said, I don't think there will be any military attack on Iran. In fact, I think that is exactly what the mullahs are hoping for, that's why they are so shrill. A western/Israeli strike on Iran might be theonly thing that can halt the slow crumbling of the mullah's grip. The people and the sentiments above will overtake Iran.

One can't even conceptualize a scenario of regional peace without Iran as a key security pillar. That's right, I said it. In the future Iran will be a major player and the cornerstone of security in the middle east. China will become the same in asia. Some in the US will decry this as a decline in US influence.

 

[hanimmal]

Holy shit!

Illegal I am very impressed (trying not to sound pompus, just reality over how much we have disagreed over the last year). That is a awesome look into Iran/China.

I agree completely, and am impressed because I had not thought of Iran as a role similar to China in terms of their region and stability.

May I ask, what kind of studying are you doing? You have over the last year really picked up your game!

 

[PadawanBater]

This is silly. I don't think anyone said they love us. What they love is the path the connected, globalized, democratic world is on. They want to be on that path too. They want prosperity and better lives for their children. They don't want to be vaporized.

That said, I don't think there will be any military attack on Iran. In fact, I think that is exactly what the mullahs are hoping for, that's why they are so shrill. A western/Israeli strike on Iran might be theonly thing that can halt the slow crumbling of the mullah's grip. The people and the sentiments above will overtake Iran.

One can't even conceptualize a scenario of regional peace without Iran as a key security pillar. That's right, I said it. In the future Iran will be a major player and the cornerstone of security in the middle east. China will become the same in asia. Some in the US will decry this as a decline in US influence.

Good post IS, gotta give credit where credit is due.

 

[abe23]

Agreed, those were the best comments I've seen from you Illegal. Spot on!

The hardliners WANT confrontation with the west because it is the only way they can justify the need for continued repression, militarization and corruption. They WANT to solicit the kind of machismo overreaction to their chest-thumping they got from dubya because it gives them legitimacy with their people and justifies building more rockets and nuclear facilities. It's the same thing Syria does with Israel. They could have had a peace deal like egypt and jordan 10 years ago, but that would mean no more "resistance" to israel and no more militarization and police-state repression...

And I'm not giving obama any credit for actually DOING anything to change things in Iran, but I think the change in administration and the US posture towards them that completely changed all of the above.

The really crazy thing is that after september 11th, iran (which had a reformist government at the time...) offered us help in dealing with al quaeda, intelligence and whatnot, but we basically snubbed them and a year later you have george bush declaring them part of the "axis of evil". Ahmedinejad won the election two years later and we all know the rest. Yet, somehow rick manages to draw the conclusion that we need MORE confrontation with iran, not less.

 

[RickWhite]

Rigged elections are a hallmark of totalitarian regimes. Not to get off subject, but I had a Spanish professor that was from Venezuela. He talked about how Hugo Chavez wins every election in a landslide and yet one would be hard pressed to find a single person who voted for him. Elections of dictators such as Ahmedinijad are nothing more than dog and pony shows and everyone knows it.

Unless there is a major revolt and Ahmedinijad is overthrown which looks doubtful, the nuclear facilities in Iran will and must be bombed. Ahmedinijad holds very radical views that one could call the Islamic version of apocalyptic views. "MAD," for those who know what that is, will not prevent him from using nukes.

The effort to overthrow Saddam and sow the seeds of Democracy in the middle East was not a bad idea and it was not without sound reason and president. Sure, the war didn't go as well as hoped, but the reasoning behind it was sound. If you disagree, you are left with the question of what is the alternative.

We have an enemy that is one of the largest threats we have faced and is very difficult to fight due to their particularly insidious ways. Making nice with them and convincing them to stop is not a reality. So, what is the answer? I can think of three choices. Either we sow the seeds of Democracy and hope that showing these people a better life will cool their flames of hatred, we wage a horrific campaign of war to crush them or we do nothing while they gain strength and their tentacles spread throughout the world until we are forced into a much worse situation.

But, I do not want to get too far off topic. We can discuss the issues above all day, and I'm sure those who disagree will argue that the Iraq war was a miserable failure and that this only serves to enrage them even more worsening the situation. Believe me, we get it - we understand your reasoning. We think it is myopic and foolish, but we get it.

The point of this thread is not whether what Bush did was right or wrong. The questions at hand deal with how effective Obama's policies and rhetoric have been.

Once again, Obama believed as do many here, that extending an olive branch to Ahmedinijad would solve the current crisis - he was dead wrong. This proves the theories Conservatives espouse and disproves those Liberals hold when it comes to dealing with such people. There is no other way to slice it. I am sorry you have been disappointed and I would like nothing more than to have been the one who was wrong, but I am not - you are.

The same is true with other leaders. Hugo Chavez didn't miss a beat in switching from his criticism of Bush to Obama. Obama was supposed to make these relationships better, so what happened. What happened was that we had a live demonstration of failed Liberal beliefs - nothing more nothing less. Liberal beliefs about the world just don't hold up in real life and this was an example.

Even the way Liberals look at the threat from radical Islam and from terror should now be viewed as demonstrably false. Obama came to office with him and his base holding the Michael Moor view that there is no global terror threat; that the terrorists as a whole are nothing more than a rag tag group of a few hundred nut jobs running around in the dessert with a tiny cache of small arms. Now, it is becoming undeniable that what the Conservatives have been saying for years is in fact correct with regard to the threat we face from Islamic terror.

Even though many Liberals cling to beliefs that have been disproved, even they can't hide the obvious change in thinking of their dear leader. Many have made the change with him, but they have done so quietly and stealthily so as not to admit they were wrong.

Maybe that is why there have been so many attempts at changing the subject and obfuscating the issue. There is no arguing the point that everything Obama and the left believed to be true of mid-East politics has been proven by recent events to be false.

Talking to nut job dictators is not constructive. The radicals will not stop hating us based on what we do or don't do - they will hate us regardless. Corrupt dictators will not play nice if we play nice with them. These views were as silly then as they are now. This is what the Obama Presidency has demonstrated. The writing is on the wall and it is abundantly clear.

 

[RickWhite]

Agreed, those were the best comments I've seen from you Illegal. Spot on!

The hardliners WANT confrontation with the west because it is the only way they can justify the need for continued repression, militarization and corruption. They WANT to solicit the kind of machismo overreaction to their chest-thumping they got from dubya because it gives them legitimacy with their people and justifies building more rockets and nuclear facilities. It's the same thing Syria does with Israel. They could have had a peace deal like egypt and jordan 10 years ago, but that would mean no more "resistance" to israel and no more militarization and police-state repression...

And I'm not giving obama any credit for actually DOING anything to change things in Iran, but I think the change in administration and the US posture towards them that completely changed all of the above.

The really crazy thing is that after september 11th, iran (which had a reformist government at the time...) offered us help in dealing with al quaeda, intelligence and whatnot, but we basically snubbed them and a year later you have george bush declaring them part of the "axis of evil". Ahmedinejad won the election two years later and we all know the rest. Yet, somehow rick manages to draw the conclusion that we need MORE confrontation with iran, not less.

Looking at the centuries of oppression in the region it is hard to argue that they need war with the US to remain in control. That just isn't commensurate with the history of the region. Islamic theocracies are oppressive by definition. Also, one of the main beefs many Muslims have with the US is that they support regimes that they find oppressive such as the Saudi Royal family - there is some truth to that in fact.

It also defies logic to suggest that people would get behind a leader who is challenging the entire world led by a global super power to eviscerate the entire country. Not exactly a wise choice where self preservation is concerned. In fact, the will for self preservation and not chest beating was behind the uprising in Iran - you have it exactely backward.

Never the less, to think that all hostile Muslim nations would undergo reform were it not for us playing the roll of antagonist is foolish at best. To believe that is to ignore everything we know about the region.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Holy shit!

Illegal I am very impressed (trying not to sound pompus, just reality over how much we have disagreed over the last year). That is a awesome look into Iran/China.

I agree completely, and am impressed because I had not thought of Iran as a role similar to China in terms of their region and stability.

May I ask, what kind of studying are you doing? You have over the last year really picked up your game!

Don't go thinking I've transformed into a peacenik. I still think those who stand in the way of this path toward connectivity and globalization (and the end of war and poverty) must be stopped with no apology. That's why I still think we did the right thing in Iraq and need to toughen up in Afghanistan. I'm for hunting down incorrigible jihadists wherever they are and killing them. And if Iran and China don't step up and shoulder their roles as regional security pillars, they may need a kick in the butt. But they can both be strategic allies. Bush played it too hawk and Obama is playing it too dove. Who's next?

PS - No, they don't want "war" because they know they would swiftly lose. But they do want confrontation and they do want the kind of half-assed military responses presidents have given them in recent years. A failed attempt to knock out a nuke site that killed a couple thousand civilians would be golden to them.