Two Obamas?

[RickWhite]

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.

Now that I think about it, I remember reading about how oppressive Islamic leaders do facilitate tensions in order to draw attention away from their failed governance. I think Bernard Lewis wrote about that - not sure if he theorized this or not.

And I can definitely see how such a strategy would be useful, but as you point out, they want a moderate level of tension, not obliteration. To extrapolate this notion to the point where we are losing focus on the reason for the civil unrest in Iran is a stretch of logic.

IDK if an intense bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities will cause a revolution or the opposite, but I do know it is largely irrelevant at this point. Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons - everything else is mere commentary.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Now that I think about it, I remember reading about how oppressive Islamic leaders do facilitate tensions in order to draw attention away from their failed governance. I think Bernard Lewis wrote about that - not sure if he theorized this or not.

And I can definitely see how such a strategy would be useful, but as you point out, they want a moderate level of tension, not obliteration. To extrapolate this notion to the point where we are losing focus on the reason for the civil unrest in Iran is a stretch of logic.

IDK if an intense bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities will cause a revolution or the opposite, but I do know it is largely irrelevant at this point. Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons - everything else is mere commentary.

That Iran will have nuclear weapons has been a done deal for some time. The point of no return has been passed. But they realize nukes are for having not for using. They want a seat at a bigger table and they are going to get it. I'm not saying I'm happy about any of this, but that's the way it is.

 

[abe23]

Now that I think about it, I remember reading about how oppressive Islamic leaders do facilitate tensions in order to draw attention away from their failed governance. I think Bernard Lewis wrote about that - not sure if he theorized this or not.

And I can definitely see how such a strategy would be useful, but as you point out, they want a moderate level of tension, not obliteration. To extrapolate this notion to the point where we are losing focus on the reason for the civil unrest in Iran is a stretch of logic.

IDK if an intense bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities will cause a revolution or the opposite, but I do know it is largely irrelevant at this point. Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons - everything else is mere commentary.

Wow....

First off, it's not "oppressive islamic leaders", that's just the way police-states tend to work. Today, most of the examples of this are to be found in the near-east but 50 years ago south america was filled with petty tyrants who would try to shore up their credibility by blowing border and trade disputes (falklands war, football war) out of proportion or suppressing 'dangerous marxist subversives'.

What I've been saying all along is that by being confrontational towards Ahmedinejad and the mullahs when bush was president, we were actually helping them maintain control by giving the foreign bogeyman they so desperately needed to hold on to their power and give themselves that minimum of popular support they need in order to avoid the kind of unrest that's happening today. I think it's even possible that ahmedinejad would have never been elected had it not been for the chest-thumping and 'axis of evil' shit.

Any kind of military action against iran would be just about the stupidest thing anyone could consider doing at this point. Believe me, as shitty as it would be for iran to have a nuclear weapon (which is still a very distant prospect, not to mention missiles to deliver them...), getting into a war with them would be far, far worse.

 

[Illegal Smile]

let's say Iran had some accurate missles with nukes right now today - whatdo you think they are going to do? Fire them at Israel? At US forces in the region? They may as well fire them at themselves. These people are not nearly as crazy as they often seem. There are huge internal disagreements about the nature of the Iran they want to emerge as a bigger player on the world stage, but they all wantto emerge - theydon't want to be vaporized.

And this is precisely the difference between them and Saddam and why Saddam had to be taken out and they don't. Iraq was not a real state with a history. Saddam cared nothing about its future. He even said he could easily lose 20 million people. There was never any possibility of engaging or containing Saddam. had the UN lifted sanction he would have had a nuke in 6 months and unlike Iran, he would have used it, or given it to others who would.

 

[doc111]

let's say Iran had some accurate missles with nukes right now today - whatdo you think they are going to do? Fire them at Israel? At US forces in the region? They may as well fire them at themselves. These people are not nearly as crazy as they often seem. There are huge internal disagreements about the nature of the Iran they want to emerge as a bigger player on the world stage, but they all wantto emerge - theydon't want to be vaporized.

And this is precisely the difference between them and Saddam and why Saddam had to be taken out and they don't. Iraq was not a real state with a history. Saddam cared nothing about its future. He even said he could easily lose 20 million people. There was never any possibility of engaging or containing Saddam. had the UN lifted sanction he would have had a nuke in 6 months and unlike Iran, he would have used it, or given it to others who would.

Good post but let's remember that Iran is a terror sponsoring state. Hezbollah, and I believe Hamas are both sponsored by Iran. If Iran get's nukes (perhaps I should say when) how long is it going to be before they supply a small nuke to a terror group who has a beef with the u.s. or Israel (and most of 'em do). All it would take is a small group of jihadists to smuggle and subsequently detonate a nuke in a large metropolitan area. Then the finger pointing begins. Was it North Korea, Pakistan, India, China? With the number of countries in the "nuclear club" growing it will be even harder to pin such an attack on an Iran or a North Korea. A nuclear Iran threatens the stability of the region and the world no matter how you slice it. The day they get that capability the world will become an exponentially more dangerous place to live.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Good post but let's remember that Iran is a terror sponsoring state. Hezbollah, and I believe Hamas are both sponsored by Iran. If Iran get's nukes (perhaps I should say when) how long is it going to be before they supply a small nuke to a terror group who has a beef with the u.s. or Israel (and most of 'em do). All it would take is a small group of jihadists to smuggle and subsequently detonate a nuke in a large metropolitan area. Then the finger pointing begins. Was it North Korea, Pakistan, India, China? With the number of countries in the "nuclear club" growing it will be even harder to pin such an attack on an Iran or a North Korea. A nuclear Iran threatens the stability of the region and the world no matter how you slice it. The day they get that capability the world will become an exponentially more dangerous place to live.

My answer is that they know they can't afford to let that happen and they won't. A small nuke in the wrong hands is more likelyto comefrom Russia or Pakistan (or NK) than from Iran.

 

[doc111]

 

[ilkhan]

Its only a matter of time before these so called "Rogue States" get nukes.
Hell we developed them 65 years ago.
IMO we can't continue to throw our weight around globaly.
We are going to have to begin treating others how we would like to be treated.

I agree with Illegal here If Iran launches on Isreal or anyone else
historians will have to buy 'Rosetta Stone' to hear Persian spoken aloud.
It will be the end of an ancent and proud people.

 

[PadawanBater]

Its only a matter of time before these so called "Rogue States" get nukes.
Hell we developed them 65 years ago.
IMO we can't continue to throw our weight around globaly.
We are going to have to begin treating others how we would like to be treated.

I agree with Illegal here If Iran launches on Isreal or anyone else
historians will have to buy 'Rosetta Stone' to hear Persian spoken aloud.
It will be the end of an ancent and proud people.

Great post.

I've asked that same question in Crackers Iran thread, what Iran would gain from nuking Israel or the US. Still stands unanswered.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Great post.

I've asked that same question in Crackers Iran thread, what Iran would gain from nuking Israel or the US. Still stands unanswered.

None of this is 100%. I'm not comfortable that there are not nutjobs in Iran that want to start a nuclear firestorm because it is part of some Islamic prophesy. I just don't think the potential for that justifies a regime change. We need to use stick and carrot with Iran, but backing that up must be toughness. Can Obama bring that much toughness?

 

[medicineman]

None of this is 100%. I'm not comfortable that there are not nutjobs in Iran that want to start a nuclear firestorm because it is part of some Islamic prophesy. I just don't think the potential for that justifies a regime change. We need to use stick and carrot with Iran, but backing that up must be toughness. Can Obama bring that much toughness?

I really wouldn't question Obamas toughness, he is more for diplomacy first. I really think if cornered, Obama would be a spitting cobra. I believe he is fully qualified to lead a war against any nuclear pirates, and would not hesitate to respond with full force. The real fear is for some Jihadist to get a suitcase Nuke and take out a major city. Who would he retaliate against? A country that would do that would dissapear from the face of the earth, but would he take out Saudi Arabia if a Saudi terrorist, Jihadist, blew himself up in a major city. That is the fear that probably worries him most, what the fuck to do after a suitcase bomb attack.

 

[RickWhite]

That Iran will have nuclear weapons has been a done deal for some time. The point of no return has been passed. But they realize nukes are for having not for using. They want a seat at a bigger table and they are going to get it. I'm not saying I'm happy about any of this, but that's the way it is.

I wish this was true. Ahmedinijad is a special situation. He believes in the Islamic version of Armageddon and bringing about the Islamic messiah (the hidden Imam). Ahmedinijad would like nothing more that to have his own people nuked.

He has even stated that a nuclear blow to Israel would wipe out a large portion of the world's Jewish population where as the world's 1.3 billion Muslims would hardly be affected if Iran was martyred. Therefore, he claims it would be well worth it to martyr the whole of Iran. And people wonder why the uprising.

No, you can not confuse these Islamic nuts with hegemonic politics as usual - that just isn't the situation.

Very soon, if the US does not take action Israel will be forced to - then get ready for gas at $7 per gallon.

 

[PadawanBater]

I wish this was true. Ahmedinijad is a special situation. He believes in the Islamic version of Armageddon and bringing about the Islamic messiah (the hidden Imam). Ahmedinijad would like nothing more that to have his own people nuked.

He has even stated that a nuclear blow to Israel would wipe out a large portion of the world's Jewish population where as the world's 1.3 billion Muslims would hardly be affected if Iran was martyred. Therefore, he claims it would be well worth it to martyr the whole of Iran. And people wonder why the uprising.

No, you can not confuse these Islamic nuts with hegemonic politics as usual - that just isn't the situation.

Very soon, if the US does not take action Israel will be forced to - then get ready for gas at $7 per gallon.

Cracker proposed the same thing, the hidden Imam prophecy, but I've asked for a source explaining why you guys believe Ahmedinijad believes this. It seems to me it's not any different than the Christian in the white house who believes in Revelations. Should foreigners actually think that Obama sits in the white house and wholeheartedly believes that the end of days is coming, as explained by the Bible? Wouldn't that notion seem absurd? He clearly doesn't believe that, right?

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying that seems like the more likely scenario, and I haven't seen anything that would point to an imminent nuclear attack because of this prophecy, especially when you add in the information IS explained, which I agree with, about how it would be the end of Iran as we know it. Again, you say Ahmedinijad doesn't care, but I don't think that really matters as it would take a lot more than just one mans approval to launch an all out nuclear attack.

The benefits just don't add up to the negative things that would happen, and I think everyone in Iran, including Ahmedinijad, knows it.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Cracker proposed the same thing, the hidden Imam prophecy, but I've asked for a source explaining why you guys believe Ahmedinijad believes this. It seems to me it's not any different than the Christian in the white house who believes in Revelations. Should foreigners actually think that Obama sits in the white house and wholeheartedly believes that the end of days is coming, as explained by the Bible? Wouldn't that notion seem absurd? He clearly doesn't believe that, right?

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying that seems like the more likely scenario, and I haven't seen anything that would point to an imminent nuclear attack because of this prophecy, especially when you add in the information IS explained, which I agree with, about how it would be the end of Iran as we know it. Again, you say Ahmedinijad doesn't care, but I don't think that really matters as it would take a lot more than just one mans approval to launch an all out nuclear attack.

The benefits just don't add up to the negative things that would happen, and I think everyone in Iran, including Ahmedinijad, knows it.

But are you comfortable with a christian in the whitehouse who believes the glorious last days are upon us and perhaps it is god's will that he be the instrument to set it in motion? Of course you're not.

 

[PadawanBater]

But are you comfortable with a christian in the whitehouse who believes the glorious last days are upon us and perhaps it is god's will that he be the instrument to set it in motion? Of course you're not.

Absolutely not. I'd oust his ass as quick as possible. Bush was about as faithful as I could stomach.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Absolutely not. I'd oust his ass as quick as possible. Bush was about as faithful as I could stomach.

So there is reason to worry about Iran not being as rational as I think they probably would be. Risky.

 

[PadawanBater]

So there is reason to worry about Iran not being as rational as I think they probably would be. Risky.

I haven't seen anything saying Ahmadinejad believes in this prophecy wholeheartedly like you might find a fundamentalist Muslim or fundamentalist Christian who does. As far as I can tell, the situation isn't any different than here, that's why I used Obama as an example. He says he's a Christian, goes to church, etc. but do you think he believes the world is going to end soon and Jesus is going to return to Earth and tribulations and the whole 9 yards?... of course not right? Same thing for Ahmadinejad, he says he's Muslim and believes in the Qur'an, goes to mosque, prays 5 times a day, etc. but do you think he believes in this hidden Imam prophecy? - if you do, then to what degree? To the point of annihilating his country, his culture, his people, his history, essentially everything that makes Iran what it is today? ...that just doesn't seem likely to me. There seems like a more reasonable explanation.

The way some of these guys talk on here, you'd think he's sitting right by the button and the only thing stopping him is that Allah hasn't said it's time yet...

 

[Illegal Smile]

I haven't seen anything saying Ahmadinejad believes in this prophecy wholeheartedly like you might find a fundamentalist Muslim or fundamentalist Christian who does. As far as I can tell, the situation isn't any different than here, that's why I used Obama as an example. He says he's a Christian, goes to church, etc. but do you think he believes the world is going to end soon and Jesus is going to return to Earth and tribulations and the whole 9 yards?... of course not right? Same thing for Ahmadinejad, he says he's Muslim and believes in the Qur'an, goes to mosque, prays 5 times a day, etc. but do you think he believes in this hidden Imam prophecy? - if you do, then to what degree? To the point of annihilating his country, his culture, his people, his history, essentially everything that makes Iran what it is today? ...that just doesn't seem likely to me. There seems like a more reasonable explanation.

The way some of these guys talk on here, you'd think he's sitting right by the button and the only thing stopping him is that Allah hasn't said it's time yet...

I don't know what he believes. That's what makes it risky.

 

[abe23]

Cracker proposed the same thing, the hidden Imam prophecy, but I've asked for a source explaining why you guys believe Ahmedinijad believes this. It seems to me it's not any different than the Christian in the white house who believes in Revelations. Should foreigners actually think that Obama sits in the white house and wholeheartedly believes that the end of days is coming, as explained by the Bible? Wouldn't that notion seem absurd? He clearly doesn't believe that, right?

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying that seems like the more likely scenario, and I haven't seen anything that would point to an imminent nuclear attack because of this prophecy, especially when you add in the information IS explained, which I agree with, about how it would be the end of Iran as we know it. Again, you say Ahmedinijad doesn't care, but I don't think that really matters as it would take a lot more than just one mans approval to launch an all out nuclear attack.

The benefits just don't add up to the negative things that would happen, and I think everyone in Iran, including Ahmedinijad, knows it.

Ahmedinejad does belong to some kind of weird shia messianic sect, I'm not sure what it's called, but it's out there somewhere...

But if that's enough to start a war with them then the soviet union should have nuked the shit out of us under reagan, since he believed in that armageddon/rapture crap and was actually in a position to set it into motion....scary stuff. Bush jr. believed the same crap.

Ricky doesn't get that military force should be the absolutely last resort no matter what the circumstances. Maybe he should stop listening to the pundits.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2438&l=1

 

[jeff f]

I haven't seen anything saying Ahmadinejad believes in this prophecy wholeheartedly like you might find a fundamentalist Muslim or fundamentalist Christian who does. As far as I can tell, the situation isn't any different than here, that's why I used Obama as an example. He says he's a Christian, goes to church, etc. but do you think he believes the world is going to end soon and Jesus is going to return to Earth and tribulations and the whole 9 yards?... of course not right? Same thing for Ahmadinejad, he says he's Muslim and believes in the Qur'an, goes to mosque, prays 5 times a day, etc. but do you think he believes in this hidden Imam prophecy? - if you do, then to what degree? To the point of annihilating his country, his culture, his people, his history, essentially everything that makes Iran what it is today? ...that just doesn't seem likely to me. There seems like a more reasonable explanation.

The way some of these guys talk on here, you'd think he's sitting right by the button and the only thing stopping him is that Allah hasn't said it's time yet...

the problem with the "no they wouldnt" thinking is, we are talking logically about illogical people.

seriously, the guy sat and looked larry king in the eye and said "we dont have any homosexuals in my country". and he damn sure wasnt kidding. he actually believes it. that is insane. he doesnt think in linear thought. he is a fucking nutjob.

and i dont think isreal is ready to live with someone who says his whole goal is to blow them to smithereens. they have already been to that concert and it didnt turn out to good. now jews have the power to take care of the problem and i believe they fully intend to excercise it.

my biggest fear is if/when isreal pulls the trigger, what will bamster do? i am not so sure he would be on the right side, with isreal. that is a fucking scary proposition.

scary times indeed.