Obama: Iran Not a Threat

Brainster

Penultimate Amazing
Brainster
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
21,960


As Jennifer Rubin notes, this should be a final exam in international relations; how many mistakes and fallacies can you spot in this little clip?

Reagan negotiated with the Soviets and Nixon with the Chinese because they were too big to ignore (and China was seen as a counterbalance to the Soviets). Iran may not be a real threat to the US, but then, neither is Al Qaeda. Will Obama negotiate with Osama? And is Iran perhaps a threat to other countries in the region beginning with I, like Iraq and Israel?

Remember, this is the guy who thinks he doesn't need any help with foreign policy.
 
Personally, I think Iran is a very real threat to the Middle East, and in turn the USA. If I recall, there are some religious leaders (leader) that wants to see the destruction of Israel before he dies, and he's not doing too well. Anyway, my point is that, unlike the USSR, these folks don't care if after they hit us (or Israel) that we blow them to Kingdom Come. The Russians value a continued existence here on Earth ... I'm not so sure about these guys; and that makes them a greater threat in some respects.
 
The thread title is so misleading that it borders on a lie.

What he actually said:
Obama said:
They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.
Click to expand...
Which of course is true.
 
It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA? USA hates Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? So why did Iran close all offices of Hezb-e-Islami on February 10, 2002? Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981? Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East. Didn"t McCain sign bomb bomb Iran? McCain can"t fund a war with Iran because the USA has no money plus McCain would have to bring back the draft.
 
varwoche said:
What he actually said: Which of course is true.
Click to expand...

There I would disagree. Sure, they don't pose the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but they seem to pose a much greater chance of doing something very serious.
 
moon1969 said:
It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA?
Click to expand...

A nuclear hit on Israel would result in a counter strike from the USA. Take it from there.

Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981? Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East. Didn"t McCain sign bomb bomb Iran? McCain can"t fund a war with Iran because the USA has no money plus McCain would have to bring back the draft.
Click to expand...

This isn't like Saddam in that the Israeli military may not be up to the task. Too big a campaign. The US wouldn't invade, they'd bomb --- and make it count. And you're right ... anti-American sentiment would soar ... hence the greater threat now.
 
boloboffin said:
Just thinking: Be sure to include my direct quote of Obama into your calculations.
Click to expand...


Of course, but one line out of context is meaningless. From what I hear, I'm not so sure he realizes the threat as being in some ways much greater.
 
That's why I provided a link to his comments quoted more fully -- so that you might find the context of his arguments. As soon as I can locate a full transcript, I'll provide that as well.

One line out of context might be meaningless, but compared to the outright lie in the OP title, it's a breath of fresh air.
 
varwoche said:
The thread title is so misleading that it borders on a lie.

What he actually said:
Obama said:
They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.
Click to expand...
Which of course is true.
Click to expand...
Ah, the untold benefits of selective editing. My favorite is from Exodus.
"Thou shalt ... commit adultry."
 
boloboffin said:
One line out of context might be meaningless, but compared to the outright lie in the OP title, it's a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...

OK ... but when you have an enemy that doesn't care if they die, in whole or in part, just what can you negotiate?
 
Here's a terrorist Barack Obama can negotiate with.

"You can trust me, Madame Speaker; I promise I'm not building a nuclear reactor with the North Koreans..."
 

Attachments

  • pel_ar_050407.jpg
    pel_ar_050407.jpg
    21.8 KB · Views: 158
So what do we do? ... go back in time to 2003? We have to deal with the situation as it stands in 2008. Like the article said, it was believed the Iranian government was in serious trouble. It's a great exercise in 20/20 hindsight ... but beyond that? Also, do you honestly believe everything it said about Iran's position on Israel?
 
Just thinking said:
Of course, but one line out of context is meaningless. From what I hear, I'm not so sure he realizes the threat as being in some ways much greater.
Click to expand...
Greater than the possible extinction of the human race through nuclear annihilation? Hmm... I'm not sure how. Iran is nowhere near MAD levels of nukes.
 
I thought the goalposts were...

OK. What we do at this point is convince the Iranians that we are negotiating in good faith. Convince EVERYONE that we are negotiating in good faith, for that matter. That would be a danged fine first step. At the very least, that would be one party at the table doing so.

The article said two things about Iran's position on Israel. The document they had delivered to Washington said that they were willing to discuss accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution. A Iranian analyst also thinks that Iran was ready to soften its stance on Israel to something approximating the Malaysian stance.

I'd definitely accept the first as accurate. The second -- well, he'd probably know better than I. I don't see why they wouldn't be ready to go there eventually. Not tomorrow, of course. But they could move in that direction. As Thomas P.M. Barnett says, connectivity is so much more effective a force to motivate ruleset adherence. Iran has much more to gain from connectivity than this stance they have now. A society capable of building a nuclear weapon is intelligent enough to understand this.
 
It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.
 
kallsop said:
It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.
Click to expand...

Obama is changing the public face of the race from a Democratic primary to a US general election. This will help him extraordinarily in the Democratic primary.

The dexterous speed with which the right wing blogs gleefully distorted and lied about what he said is the real kneejerk mistake here. "Obama said Iran wasn't a threat? Roll the tape!"

Please, FSM, please keep the mighty right wing Wurlitzer so out of tune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom