Obama: Iran Not a Threat

[Dr Adequate]

"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

They're not a serious threat to us like the Soviet Union. But they are a grave threat. Because a grave threat is not a serious threat.

Because a grave threat (to what?) is not as serious a threat as having nuclear missiles ready to fire at all your major cities. Which they did. For ****'s sake, they could have obliterated much of America with a phone call.

And yet you negotiated with them.

In retrospect, that seems to have been quite a good idea.

 

[Dr Adequate]

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR.

Well, that was an odd thing to say as a response to my post. Did you bother to read it at any point?

 

[Texas]

Well, that was an odd thing to say as a response to my post. Did you bother to read it at any point?

No, Iran doesn't pose the same serious threat to the US, nor to the rest of the free world, as the USSR did.

No, your post implied that it was common knowledge in the world that the USSR was a real danger to the United States and the Western European countries. My post just challenged that implication when it came to the political left during the Cold War. I assume you remember the European lefts reaction to the deployment of the Trident Missiles in Europe? To SDI? The British "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament" the organisation that demanded unilateral disarmament. The one that pioneered the famous peace sign? My point that when it comes to the left, the message is nothing if not consistent.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, your post implied that it was common knowledge in the world that the USSR was a real danger to the United States and the Western European countries ... My point that when it comes to the left, the message is nothing if not consistent.

Why, thank you. Speaking as one of "the left" my "message" has indeed been entirely consistent, and I did think that the power of the USSR to annihilate me and everyone and everything I care for was a "real danger".

If, however, "the right" would now like to suggest that the USSR was a less serious threat to us then than Iran is at present, merely in order to make a partisan criticicism of one clause in one speech made by one non-Republican, then I am afraid that I cannot return the compliment, because for some reason the word "consistent" does not spring to mind when I wish to describe such behavior. The word "truthful", or the phrase "not completely frickin' stupid" would not be first to my lips either.

 

[boloboffin]

Wow. He did not state that Iran was not a serious threat. He very clearly was comparing it to the kind of threat the Soviet Union was.

Just wow.

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

There are many reasons to negotiate, to "talk" with OTHER COUNTRIES.

Last I checked, Al-Qaeda was not a sovereign nation...Iran is.

YEs other presidents negotiated with Bigger, much more dangerous enemies. Obama may have to negotiate with Russia and China himself. However, he is right. In terms of overall danger, in terms of the SIZE of the danger, Iran is small compared to the other two.

Reading anything more into his comments is simple RIGHT WING FEAR MONGERING and MISREPRESENTATION.

TAM

 

[ZenFountain]

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR. THe message never changes.

How so? 30 years ago (chronologically, not figuratively) we were in a period of stagflation and oil shock thanks to terrible economic mismanagement during the Vietnam war and foreign policy blunders in the Middle East. It was Nixon that flew to China and Nixon that initiated détente with the Soviets. Big surprise that when the economy recovered from the shock of a floating currency and oil prices plummeted, we went strait back to a cowboy President that racked up massive deficits with big guns and tough talk.

 

[kallsop]

I'm not sure what the point was for Obama to say that Iran is not as big of a threat as the USSR once was. He doesn't need to be blundering through these issues and his campaign inexperience is showing. Slow down and think it through with your minders before you speak without a teleprompter.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not sure what the point was for Obama to say that Iran is not as big of a threat as the USSR once was.

Then read his speech through with more attention and get an adult to help you with the long words that make your brain all hurty.

He doesn't need to be blundering through these issues and his campaign inexperience is showing. Slow down and think it through with your minders before you speak without a teleprompter.

You seem to think that telling the truth is wrong in some way.

Well, at least this shows a certain amount of consistency on your part.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not sure what the point was for Obama to say that Iran is not as big of a threat as the USSR once was. He doesn't need to be blundering through these issues and his campaign inexperience is showing. Slow down and think it through with your minders before you speak without a teleprompter.

It shows me that he has a clear mind for perspective which lets him show that he understands foreign policy even without a teleprompter. True, he doesn't have much experience with fearmongering, which is always useful during a campaign. Maybe that will come with time, but I kinda like this new approach of rational examination. It's refreshing.

To the Republicans though, it seems as if their scary issues are:

• Obama will (gasp) TALK to our enemies.
• Obama (horrors) knows the difference between a country with an extensive nuclear arsenal and effective delivery system versus a country with maybe one nuke and no delivery system.

What will they try to scare us with next?

 

[WildCat]

Maybe Obama will send a letter to the Iranian mullahs politely asking them not meddle in the affairs of their neighbors. After all, this has worked wonders before!

Warning, may be illegal to view in parts of Europe:

 

[boloboffin]

And thus the thread is Godwinized.

 

[WildCat]

And thus the thread is Godwinized.

I know, we musn't consider the potential ramifications of being taken for fools by our enemies.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it... unless you're convinced you're so much smarter than those people in the past apparently.

 

[Just thinking]

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.

Because the Russians did not want to die as a result of their launching missiles at us (USA). Some of these nuts in Iran want to die ... after of course eliminating Israel. It gets them a front row seat next to Allah. I don't know how one can overcome that through talks, and Obama certainly hasn't explained how he'd do it either. Didn't he hear the mouthpiece for Iran when he came over here and spoke at a University? Or is he again going to use the Reverend Wright excuse?

 

[Just thinking]

Another DP ... sorry. If only this forum would respond in one's lifetime ...

 

[Brainster]

I know that people don't want to believe that Obama says dumb things, to the point where they will ignore what he actually said. Abe Greenwald has a classic example of this form of denialism:

Here’s Gary Hart:

I don’t think Barack Obama or any other president is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that . . . What you do is send diplomats and negotiators to explore areas of mutual interest. And if it does seem profitable, then you go to the heads of state.

Here’s Joe Biden:

What we’re talking about here is that he has repeatedly since then said he would not negotiate unconditionally, meaning him sitting down, alone, right off the bat with these leaders.

Here’s Barack Obama’s website:

Barack Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Since I did not receive an apology, David Wong is now in my ignore list. Boloboffin's work in the CT subforum is too valuable to miss, but I will no longer be replying to him in the presidential elections subforum.

 

[varwoche]

Well, excuuuuuuusssssse me! The title is so misleading, because what Obama said is "They don't pose a serious threat to us..." Is the gripe that I didn't include the word "serious"?

No, it's the fact that what comes after the ellipsis puts the words in an entirely different light. (duh!)

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Don't think so, though a strike from Israel is likely. I am pretty sure they are included in some of the early warning network that detects nuclear ballistic launches. ( I can't confirm, don't know for certain, base it on use of Patriot and Arrow as BMD units and how cueing for that system works.) So, if missiles fly toward Israel, theirs would be on the way to Teheran/Iran before hitting Israel. I doubt they'd listen to any American President who tried to stop them from a counter in the few minutes they'd have to make a decision.

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.

Still trying to fathom why bombing Iran advances US interests in the Persian Gulf. Care to share?

DR

 

[Just thinking]

Don't think so, though a strike from Israel is likely. I am pretty sure they are included in some of the early warning network that detects nuclear ballistic launches. ( I can't confirm, don't know for certain, base it on use of Patriot and Arrow as BMD units and how cueing for that system works.) So, if missiles fly toward Israel, theirs would be on the way to Teheran/Iran before hitting Israel. I doubt they'd listen to any American President who tried to stop them from a counter in the few minutes they'd have to make a decision.

I doubt that too. In fact, I don't think we'd try to stop it. But they might not be up to the task of taking out all of Iran's military and nuclear arsenal, which includes refining capacity. I think we'd step up to the plate if it became serious enough --- and nuclear launches against Israel would be serious.

Still trying to fathom why bombing Iran advances US interests in the Persian Gulf. Care to share?

DR

Perhaps you misunderstood. I said it would elevate anti-American sentiment. And it's not that we want to bomb Iran, they may give us no choice. Nuclear arms in the hands of some of these guys is unacceptable.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And it's not that we want to bomb Iran, they may give us no choice. Nuclear arms in the hands of some of these guys is unacceptable.

OK, someone has to, so I'll say it:

So the nuclear strike on North Korea is a few days away? Ya see, it's unacceptable that they have nukes.

I don't agree with the use of term "unacceptable" in this context. Iran getting nukes simply makes the security situation more difficult, just as India and Pakistan having nukes makes the security situation more difficult.

DR