Obama: Iran Not a Threat

[Pookster]

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:

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.

I think I'm missing something in all of this. The thread title says ...

"Obama: Iran Not a Threat"

Where has he stated this specifically? Am I just overlooking something here? I've seen quotes where he says Iran is not as serious a threat as the Soviet Union, but that seems to at least confirm he sees Iran as a threat. Does Iran have to be a a serious threat in order to be a threat in your view? How do you substantiate the title of the thread without putting words in (or omitting them out of) Obama's mouth? If there is a link to him saying specifically that Iran isn't a threat, then, please, point it out to me. Help a girl out, won't ya? Thanks.

 

[boloboffin]

I just found out that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons in 2005. Yes, there have religious and political leaders this cynical before. However, someone capable of this kind of bluff isn't a madman looking for his 72 virgins either. That fatwa, combined with the recent NIE showing that Iran is not trying to building nuclear weapons, is enough to let me consider that in this Iran is being completely up front.

Brainster, you'll be getting no apology from me except this one in the classical sense. You posted a thread title which was false. When called on it, you quotemined and danced in the fine tradition of people we have argued against together in the Conspiracy Theories forum. You then had the nerve to label me an Obamaniac for daring to point out your lack of clothing. I have admitted to all the errors I made in this thread, one a substantial one. I won't admit to a mistake I didn't make.

 

[Suddenly]

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

Iran is very similar to the USSR post WWII, except on a minor scale. Both have similar motivations behind their aggressive policies in that both are a bit paranoid after suffering massive damage during an invasion. Even Iran's wild threats against Israel can be viewed through a realpolitik lens as an effort to unify the islamic world to avoid the horrific losses Iran suffered when Iraq invaded.

There is a weird irony that we have conservatives who are implicitly downplaying the seriousness of the commie threat and the willingness of the Soviet block to actively battle the west via proxy wars and such. One can only imagine the bricks being excreted were the Iranians to bring Cuba under its influence and use Cubans to help in a civil war in Angola.

The other thing that kills me is McCain, the man who was singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" is accusing Obama of being reckless as to foreign policy....

I'm considering being put in an intentional coma until after the election just so to be sure my brain doesn't explode...

 

[joobz]

I heard today that a Presidential sit-down with Ahmedinejad would lend legitimacy to his rule, which is reportedly tenuous. My question here is is this a true statement? Would a sit-down strengthen his rule and if so is that a bad thing?

I guess my questions surround the notion that if Ahmedinejad was to lose power, who would replace him? Is that rule likely to be any more favorable towards the US?

And Wildcat, is really your best argument against a sit-down because you are afraid of being laughed at? Or are you claiming that Rosevelt's request to respect national borders in some way caused or helped Hitler to invade those countries?

 

[Just thinking]

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 is very similar to the USSR post WWII, except on a minor scale. Both have similar motivations behind their aggressive policies in that both are a bit paranoid after suffering massive damage during an invasion. Even Iran's wild threats against Israel can be viewed through a realpolitik lens as an effort to unify the islamic world to avoid the horrific losses Iran suffered when Iraq invaded.

Why is it that it seems some here do not see the elephant in the room?

Now, I will say it, since no one else seems to be able to: Religious fundamentalists that are hell bent on doing harm with no regard for their own lives (and/or those of their people) pose a greater threat than the Russians did/do. Yes, for 40 some years we and the Soviets had enough weapons pointed at each other to kill the world many times over. Yet, with all those weapons, and all the tension, just how many hits from them did the US take in all that time? How many buildings in Manhattan did they strike down? How many US Navy ships were hit? How many military buildings/embassies over seas? How much damage was inflicted on the Pentagon? How many innocent civilians here at home were killed?

Big difference when your enemy doesn't care about living till tomorrow.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm considering being put in an intentional coma until after the election just so to be sure my brain doesn't explode...

Why not try the Ted Williams trick, and have your brain frozen? Call it a Zombie Daquari if you like.

Iran is very similar to the USSR post WWII, except on a minor scale.

And scale is an important consideration in any threat assessment.

Both have similar motivations behind their aggressive policies in that both are a bit paranoid after suffering massive damage during an invasion.

Iran's massive invasion was when? The Iran Iraq war was mostly waged in a constrained area between the two nations, though plenty of air raids and Theater Ballistic Missiles with conventional heads were fired deep into one another's territory. Not like the penetration of the USSR by the Wehrmacht, at all. Poor analogy, methinks.

Even Iran's wild threats against Israel can be viewed through a realpolitik lens as an effort to unify the islamic world to avoid the horrific losses Iran suffered when Iraq invaded.

Yes, Iran suffered horrific losses when Iraq invaded. I am not quite following the Israel tie-in, given that Iran is considered with suspicion in most Arab capitals. I think your horrific losses example would be better done by comparing the British of WW I. Not invaded, but suffered horrific losses. Similarly in WW II: a lot of dead people, ships sunk, cities bombed, but not invaded.

If I read you correctly, the Iranians are worried about an Israeli attack from the air, not an invasion. Did I get that right?

There is a weird irony that we have conservatives who are implicitly downplaying the seriousness of the commie threat and the willingness of the Soviet block to actively battle the west via proxy wars and such. One can only imagine the bricks being excreted were the Iranians to bring Cuba under its influence and use Cubans to help in a civil war in Angola.

Nitpick: Soviet bloc, not block. As to Iran exporting their Islamic revolution, they've been doing that since about 1980, in one form or another, with varying success, see Hezbollah as one such client. If you don't consider some of the foaming at the mouth from even Cheney about attacks on Iran, the War on Terror, state sponsors of terror, and so on, what do you consider a defecation of building material?

The other thing that kills me is McCain, the man who was singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" is accusing Obama of being reckless as to foreign policy....

Ever heard of a thing called a joke? Likewise the old gaffe by Reagan on a mic he thought was off "In five minutes, we bomb Russia."

Joke.

DR

 

[Dr Adequate]

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.

On the evidence of this thread so far, strike the word "don't".

Abe Greenwald has a classic example of this form of denialism:

Well, in order to work out whether that is "denialism", or stating the bleedin' obvious, we shall first have to look at what Obama said, something that you seem singularly reluctant to do, and what he meant, something that I predict that you will find impossible.

But let's try it. When Obama said "without preconditions", did he mean:

(a) That he'd take the first plane to Tehran and see if anyone meets him at the airport?

(b) That he would be willing to talk to Iranian leaders about the points that divide them from the West without asking that they concede some of those points before he'll start negotiating about them?

If (a), then you may have found some classic examples of "denialism". If (b), then you may have supplied one.

 

[Suddenly]

I heard today that a Presidential sit-down with Ahmedinejad would lend legitimacy to his rule, which is reportedly tenuous. My question here is is this a true statement? Would a sit-down strengthen his rule and if so is that a bad thing?

Ahmedinejad's true position is a puppet of the mullahs.

The Iranian people tend to be more liberal than many would want to believe. If Ahmedinejad were to be replaced, this would be a sign that the mullahs are lightening up. They aren't likely to find a more hard-lined puppet...

The real danger of diplomacy is to the mullahs. They preside over a population that is more liberal than most people want to admit, and their power rests on propaganda fueled distrust and fear of the west. Diplomacy would weaken this, and massive western investment would probably be fatal. Iran still hasn't really recovered from their war as far as infrastructure goes, including their drilling capacity, and this isn't because people there don't like money as much as modernization and wealth is a threat to the mullahs.

Entering into diplomacy with Iran will probably be useless on the surface as the present government is almost by definition incapable of bargaining in good faith. There are deeper strategic factors however.

 

[Tricky]

Why is it that it seems some here do not see the elephant in the room?

Must be one of those invisible pink elephants.

Now, I will say it, since no one else seems to be able to: Religious fundamentalists that are hell bent on doing harm with no regard for their own lives pose a greater threat than the Russians did/do. Yes, for 40 some years we and the Soviets had enough weapons pointed at each other to kill the world many times over. Yet, with all those weapons, and all the tension, just how many hits from them did the US take in all that time? How many buildings in Manhattan did they strike down? How many US Navy ships were hit? How many military buildings/embassies over seas? How much damage was inflicted on the Pentagon? How many innocent civilians here at home were killed?

No doubt, the Islamics are crazier and less concerned with their own individual well-being. Still, they could not conquer the US. The could not destroy any significant portion of our population. Their very best shot so far was to destroy three buildings and damage a third. Most of the ones who carried out that attack were from Saudi Arabia, one of our allies. If you think that even a multinational terrorist attack is anything like a nuclear war between superpowers with many many H-bombs, then I think you are having some serious problems with scale.

Also, it should be pointed out that not a single attack on the US was committed by the armed forces of an Islamic nation. Certainly I agree that the governments did nod and wink at them, but the first time an Islamic government actually sent soldiers of their army, that would be the end for them. The first time Iran sent a nuke (assuming they have one) would be the last. And they know this. So does North Korea. (Depending on who they nuked. If NK nuked Iraq, we'd probably call it a "measured response".)

Now compare this to a country that has a whole lot of nukes that are ready to fly long distances and that nation invades a country with their soldiers and full military might, just because they have a rumor that they may have some weapons. Sure Iran is crazy and dangerous, but you'd have a hard time convincing many people that they are more crazy than the US when it comes to attacking other countries. And they're sure as hell no where near as dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I hate terrorism and I'd like to stop it, but to pretend it is anything close to the danger of nuclear annihilation is... well... crazy.

Big difference when your enemy doesn't care about living till tomorrow.

But of course, that is not the case. You don't see any of the nations' leaders taking part in suicide attacks. Neither do I see them holding the position that they would gladly wipe themselves off the map if they could also wipe Israel off the map. What I see is them wanting to defeat Israel, not join them in death. Can you point me to a single statement from Iraq or any Islamic nation that suggests that they would end the lives of all their countrymen if they could achieve the end of Israel?

 

[Brainster]

I think I'm missing something in all of this. The thread title says ...

"Obama: Iran Not a Threat"

Where has he stated this specifically? Am I just overlooking something here? I've seen quotes where he says Iran is not as serious a threat as the Soviet Union, but that seems to at least confirm he sees Iran as a threat. Does Iran have to be a a serious threat in order to be a threat in your view? How do you substantiate the title of the thread without putting words in (or omitting them out of) Obama's mouth? If there is a link to him saying specifically that Iran isn't a threat, then, please, point it out to me. Help a girl out, won't ya? Thanks.

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?

Obama knows he was wrong, hence his comments in Billings the next day about Iran being a "grave threat". Like I said earlier, this is no longer about Obama to me since he's recognized his mistake. It's about people here saying the title of the post is a lie. They are wrong. I am willing to grant that they appear not to realize they are wrong, so I will not accuse them of telling a deliberate falsehood. But they are wrong nonetheless.

 

[Pookster]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

Looking at that quote alone without considering any possible context issues that may or may not exist, sure.

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?

Ahhh ... I don't think so. If I understand this correctly, you're trying to say that something has to be a serious threat in order to be a threat, right? So, if I don't have a serious allergy problem with pollen, then I don't have an allergy problem with pollen? Do you not see the problem with your logic? Seriously?

... It's about people here saying the title of the post is a lie. They are wrong. I am willing to grant that they appear not to realize they are wrong, so I will not accuse them of telling a deliberate falsehood. But they are wrong nonetheless.

I wouldn't call it a lie ... if you actually believe that a problem has to be serious in order for it to be a problem. Do you? If you don't, and given how much you're defending this, how else could it be classified but as knowingly spreading a false statement?

 

[Tricky]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

Do you think Iran could conquer the US? Yes, they could hurt us. Maybe hurt us badly, but there is no serious threat of being defeated by Iran.

What exactly is it you call a serious threat? People dying? Yes, we've seen that can happen, although the 9-11 deaths would be lost in the automobile fatality records of a single year. Destroying our infrastructure? Somehow I doubt it. They'd have to have a lot more firepower than it appears they have. Breaking our morale? Possibly, though I've noticed that Americans tend to pull together during this sort of thing rather than waving the white flag.

In the end, Iran could cause us severe discomfort, even genuine hardship. It is not to be taken lightly. On the other hand it should not provoke a Chicken Little response that the sky is falling.

It appears that Barak Obama understands this far better than you.

 

[joobz]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

which is true.

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

Depends on your definition of "serious". By context of his speech, he made it clear that former USSR was a serious threat. By that standard, Iran isn't a serious threat. That doesn't mean they aren't a problem. I think the only honest thing to do is to take Obama at his own context.

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?

no, it's not the same thing.
Coming down with the flu isn't serious, but it is a threat.

Obama knows he was wrong, hence his comments in Billings the next day about Iran being a "grave threat".

That's a dishonest take of Obama's response. It seems clear that he was responding to the missinterpretations of his words that people have made. It's clear what he said when taken in context. However, McCain and others had jumped down his throat to project a image of ignorance on him. If he ignored those claims, he would have done more harm.

Like I said earlier, this is no longer about Obama to me since he's recognized his mistake.

What mistake? The one people have projected onto him?

It's about people here saying the title of the post is a lie. They are wrong. I am willing to grant that they appear not to realize they are wrong, so I will not accuse them of telling a deliberate falsehood. But they are wrong nonetheless.

I don't claim you lied. I do not think you did it maliciously. I think you are wrong, and the evidence supports my position, but I do not hold you in any illregard.

 

[Brainster]

All right, I will apologize for the title of the thread, which should have read "Obama: Iran Not a Serious Threat". Is that acceptable to everybody?

Of course, I look forward to those saying Obama was right, Iran is not a serious threat to now castigate him for saying Iran is a grave threat. Because "not a serious threat" is closer to "not a threat" than it is to "a grave threat".

 

[dudalb]

I doubt his approach to Iran will be much different than GWB's. Some tough talk, but otherwise nothing significant.

I agree. Obama is already downplaying the "I Will Meet With the President Of Iran" angle. (I think Hilary was right on that, yes, have diplomatic talks but don't go the summit route until we know some kind of deal is possible.)
This whole thread is why I am cynical about politics. The Anti Obama People are wrong in saying that Obama said Iran is not a threat, the Pro Obama people do not want to admit that Obama put his foot in his mouth in his response to the Bush speech. Obama is going to have to remember that "It's Not What You Say, Buy How You Say It,That Makes Or Breaks A Case" is an old statement, a cliche, but very true none the less .

 

[chipmunk stew]

In the initial statement you can make that argument, but later on in the clip, he reiterates this in a way that eliminates the Soviet comparison:

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

I abbreviated that to "Not a Threat", which I can understand some might find unfair. But when you say something is not a serious threat, aren't you in essence saying it's not a threat?

He didn't say Iran is not a potential threat, though. He said "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance." He's talking about their actions--"tried to pose"--not their potential. And he made the statement in the same speech in which he earlier said Iran was not as serious a threat as the Soviet Union was, a point that underscored both his view that we shouldn't be afraid of facing these (smaller) threats directly and his view that direct diplomacy offers the opportunity to make it plain to these heads of state that our responses to their actions will be very rational and predictable, not irrationally- or politically-driven. Action towards posing a serious (Soviet-scale) threat will be met with appropriately scaled sticks, while action towards becoming a respectable member of the world community will be met with appropriately scaled carrots.

 

[Pookster]

All right, I will apologize for the title of the thread, which should have read "Obama: Iran Not a Serious Threat". Is that acceptable to everybody?

Certainly.

Of course, I look forward to those saying Obama was right, Iran is not a serious threat to now castigate him for saying Iran is a grave threat. Because "not a serious threat" is closer to "not a threat" than it is to "a grave threat".

I don't look forward to it. Semantical word games like that are rather silly, don't you agree?

 

[Suddenly]

Iran's massive invasion was when? The Iran Iraq war was mostly waged in a constrained area between the two nations, though plenty of air raids and Theater Ballistic Missiles with conventional heads were fired deep into one another's territory. Not like the penetration of the USSR by the Wehrmacht, at all. Poor analogy, methinks.

Yes, Iran suffered horrific losses when Iraq invaded.

I am not quite following the Israel tie-in, given that Iran is considered with suspicion in most Arab capitals. I think your horrific losses example would be better done by comparing the British of WW I. Not invaded, but suffered horrific losses. Similarly in WW II: a lot of dead people, ships sunk, cities bombed, but not invaded.

Iran was invaded, and part of the reason they had such losses were battle tactics that at the time gave little weight to the lives of the troops. Human wave attacks, "volunteers" that would walk in front of tanks when traveling through a suspected minefield, and so on. The result as a matter of demographic effect is closer to Russia than England.[/quote]

If I read you correctly, the Iranians are worried about an Israeli attack from the air, not an invasion. Did I get that right?

Not quite. As to the arab sunni world, the largely Shiite Aryan Iran is in (a bit lesser) danger of the same sort of religious / ethnic xenophobia we see towards Israel. So it makes sense that they would be the loudest barking dog about Israel. This isn't denying any genuine hatred as to Israel, just that there is another political purpose for Iran to be conspicuous as to threats and other anti-Israel stuff.

i

Ever heard of a thing called a joke? Likewise the old gaffe by Reagan on a mic he thought was off "In five minutes, we bomb Russia."

Joke.

DR

A very reckless joke in both situations. For someone in Reagan's position during the crumbling of a heavily armed paranoid regime with drunken political and military leaders, it was appalling.

If one is going to engage in "humor" of questionable taste and possible inflammatory effect, one should be sure to do so in private. Otherwise it is very reckless behavior.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So in essence Barack was saying that Iran does not pose a serious threat to us, right? Can we get that far?

If Iran is currently posing a serious threat to the USA, can I ask why the only effect of this thus far has been to provide talking points in the election campaign? I'd have thought those wonderful, wonderful Republicans would be doing something about it, especially since one of them happens to be President.

How exactly are they dealing with this serious threat? Besides slagging off Obama for stating the bleedin' obvious, of course.

 

[Just thinking]

Must be one of those invisible pink elephants.

No doubt, the Islamics are crazier and less concerned with their own individual well-being. Still, they could not conquer the US. The could not destroy any significant portion of our population.

Perhaps conquer is not the goal ... just incurring deaths. Many deaths. Please try and keep my points of this debate focused. I believe that they feel the need to do this as their own religious duty. Win or lose is not their game --- to kill is all that matters. Did the suicide terrorists of 9/11 feel that they were going to conquer anything? Or those that blew a hole in the USS Kohl?

Their very best shot so far was to destroy three buildings and damage a third. Most of the ones who carried out that attack were from Saudi Arabia, one of our allies. If you think that even a multinational terrorist attack is anything like a nuclear war between superpowers with many many H-bombs, then I think you are having some serious problems with scale.

The threat of total annihilation (USA vs. USSR) loses to a single nuclear bomb actually going off in say, a NY City seaport. (Conclusion: Scale has little to do with it.) The former was held at bay due to the fact that the Russians value their lives, culture and future every bit as much as Americans do. It is much harder to stop someone that doesn't care about dying.

Also, it should be pointed out that not a single attack on the US was committed by the armed forces of an Islamic nation.

Just where are many of the suicide insurgents in Iraq coming from?

Certainly I agree that the governments did nod and wink at them, but the first time an Islamic government actually sent soldiers of their army, that would be the end for them.

And they know that. Which is why they are taking their nuclear program to the inevitable conclusion, despite all the efforts to stop it. They know their first major strike will be met with extreme force ... which is why (I believe) they want it to be a biggie.

The first time Iran sent a nuke (assuming they have one) would be the last. And they know this. So does North Korea. (Depending on who they nuked. If NK nuked Iraq, we'd probably call it a "measured response".)

Speaking of NK, I feel that the leaders there value their lifestyle too much to risk losing it in a nuclear exchange. Not so with the mullahs.

Now compare this to a country that has a whole lot of nukes that are ready to fly long distances and that nation invades a country with their soldiers and full military might, just because they have a rumor that they may have some weapons. Sure Iran is crazy and dangerous, but you'd have a hard time convincing many people that they are more crazy than the US when it comes to attacking other countries. And they're sure as hell no where near as dangerous.

I did the comparison, and so far no one has answered my questions.

Don't get me wrong, I hate terrorism and I'd like to stop it, but to pretend it is anything close to the danger of nuclear annihilation is... well... crazy.

Just for the record ... I never said we would be obliterated ... simply hit. And hit hard if it's nuclear. And I think it's more likely from those that feel it's their religious obligation as opposed to those that simply want to hold someone at bay.

But of course, that is not the case. You don't see any of the nations' leaders taking part in suicide attacks. Neither do I see them holding the position that they would gladly wipe themselves off the map if they could also wipe Israel off the map.

Perhaps you might want to ask those in Israel.

What I see is them wanting to defeat Israel, not join them in death. Can you point me to a single statement from Iraq or any Islamic nation that suggests that they would end the lives of all their countrymen if they could achieve the end of Israel?

Perhaps not all, but ...