Obama: Iran Not a Threat

[joobz]

Sure it can. But you have diplomats do the heavy lifting beforehan - the POTUS doesn't just show up and start negotiations out of thin air. With the Soviets it took months or years of diplomats hashing out the details before the POTUS met face-to-face with the Soviet leader. Why is Iran so special these steps should be skipped entirely?

What makes you think they wouldn't?

Based upon the tenor of the speeches. It's not hard to see that.

So you haven't ever played poker. And it shows.

That's a rather dumb conclusion. I've played poker, and typically it's a game you play face-to-face. Your solution is one of avoidance. That's rather a poor poker face. As I said, What sounds like a stronger POTUS?

"I'm willing to face my enemies."

"My administration will go into talks with their administration, then once amicable agreements after dozens of meetings, where we can make many demands you will call unreasonable and allow us to be characterized as cowardly and afraid, all the while I can continue pretend tough talk. "

A "position of strength and power" has nothing to do with what you're willing to do. It has to do with actually being in a position of strength and power, and showing up without any groundwork at all is certainly not a position of strength.

Again, you are projecting "no groundwork". Further, it's clearly a strong statement to say,"I'm willinig to talk to my enemies. I have nothing to fear." That's a position of power. You're sounding cowardly by saying the POTUS shouldn't be willing to talk.

 

[Pookster]

Sure it can. But you have diplomats do the heavy lifting beforehan - the POTUS doesn't just show up and start negotiations out of thin air. With the Soviets it took months or years of diplomats hashing out the details before the POTUS met face-to-face with the Soviet leader. Why is Iran so special these steps should be skipped entirely?

Does not having "preconditions" mean that Obama wouldn't have diplomats doing some early groundwork beforehand? Are you literally interpreting "no preconditions" as being "hey, Iran ... I'm gonna drop by for a visit next week to have a chat"?

 

[Tricky]

Does not having "preconditions" mean that Obama wouldn't have diplomats doing some early groundwork beforehand? Are you literally interpreting "no preconditions" as being "hey, Iran ... I'm gonna drop by for a visit next week to have a chat"?

I would guess it means "no publicly stated preconditions." Obviously there are some preconditions in the minds of the negotiators. For example, "We will not withdraw all support for Israel" is probably a precondition, even if not stated publicly.

Really, I think that's the way to go. Stating your unchangable positions prior to meeting is effectively the same as showing your cards in advance (to continue with the poker analogy). Stating that you are not showing your cards is not the same as not having cards.

 

[BeAChooser]

The comparison of Iran to the USSR misses the real threat posed by Iran. A much better comparison would be with Nazi Germany. I would suggest that Obama (were he to become President) might eventually be regarded as the "Neville Chamberlain" of our time.

 

[moon1969]

So Iran is more important then Cuba? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a biger dictator then Raúl Castro? I hope Obama ask Raúl Castro to change Cuba. Probaly nothing will change in Cuba and Raúl Castro will be just like his brother Fidel Castro.

 

[Pookster]

I would guess it means "no publicly stated preconditions." Obviously there are some preconditions in the minds of the negotiators. For example, "We will not withdraw all support for Israel" is probably a precondition, even if not stated publicly.

Really, I think that's the way to go. Stating your unchangable positions prior to meeting is effectively the same as showing your cards in advance (to continue with the poker analogy). Stating that you are not showing your cards is not the same as not having cards.

I agree. I just don't see Obama showing up without some groundwork being done beforehand ... preconditions or not -- which is what WildCat seemed to be saying. Obviously there are implicit preconditions as you mention. There will just be no "demands" made of Iran beforehand though.

Poker is such a bad analogy too, IMO, unless you're playing something like Texas hold'em or whatever it's called (the thing on ESPN) where most of your cards are automatically known to all the players. You just don't know which cards will ultimately make up your opponent's hand.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

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?

Because people who deny the obvious and insist that they are going to destroy a country and are the leaders of a country are, in general, a threat.

Specifically he is a threat to the US for several reasons:

a) Israel is a strategic US ally.
b) Iran has the capability to shut down vital shipping lanes for western oil.
c) Iran has proxy terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

Now as someone else said on this thread - Obama said that Iran was not the same sort of threat as the USSR, and I concur with that. Iran is far worse. The USSR and the USA had a respect for consequences should they directly attack each other. There was no point in initiating a war when you would destroy your own country and standard of living. Millenial cults and doomsday religions actively seek consummation by destruction. This makes Iran far more likely to initiate a confrontation than the USSR.

USA hates Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? So why did Iran close all offices of Hezb-e-Islami on February 10, 2002?

what has this got to do with anything?

Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981?

Yes, do you? Do you remember the reaction to the raid? Do you remember why the raid was feasible in the first place and why such a raid would not be feasible in Iran? However I would not preclude them taking some action if they think that everyone else will just stand around and do nothing.

Obama, by his "willing to talk to Iran" rhetoric does make such an Israeli strike more likely, not less.

Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East.

so what? At what point has America been popular in the Middle east (Israel excepted of course)? America kicks Saddam out of a mid east country that he had invaded - were the Arabs out in the street waving the stars and stripes and shouting "Allah Bless America!"? Were they buggery.

As for Iran - if the US attacked Iran most of the Middle east, the Arabs, would be pretty happy about it. They would not come out in support of America publicly of course...

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.

Not sure what you mean with this paragraph. I don't think McCain - or anyone else in the US - is looking to start a war with Iran on the ground. I don't think the US Military as it is positioned right now can embark on something like that. It needs to finish up in Iraq and review the strategic posting of US troops overseas.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by moon1969
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?

Because people who deny the obvious and insist that they are going to destroy a country and are the leaders of a country are, in general, a threat.

And keep in mind the US is the "Great Satan". We were called that long before the invasion of Iraq. I'm sure Iran's leaders wouldn't be content with just destroying the "little Satan".

 

[ZouPrime]

Because people who deny the obvious and insist that they are going to destroy a country and are the leaders of a country are, in general, a threat.

Most of Iran rhetoric against the jews are aimed at their national expectations. This has been pointed out again and again. It doesn't mean it describes correctly their foreign policy. All countries do that, even the US. Clinton said she wanted to attack Iran, does it means she really will do it? Of course not, it's just political posturing. Same thing for denying the holocaust - as long as a significant majority of the Iranian population believe so, don't expect their leader to change their tune. Of course, western politicians understand that, but it doesn't stop them from exploiting the situation and creating fear for the… credulous and ignorant mass.

Specifically he is a threat to the US for several reasons:

a) Israel is a strategic US ally.

So it's not a threat to the US then. You could always say that it's in the US interest to help it's political allies in the middle east, but it doesn't mean that Iran is suddendly a threat. Also, Israel is a much bigger threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel.

b) Iran has the capability to shut down vital shipping lanes for western oil.

And the US has the capability to do much worst to every single nation of the world. Does it mean that these nations are justified to consider the US a threat based on this?

c) Iran has proxy terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

… which doesn't operate against the US. Also, the US has an history of supporting proxy organisations around the world, so I don't know exactly why you complain. Every powers use proxies.

Now as someone else said on this thread - Obama said that Iran was not the same sort of threat as the USSR, and I concur with that. Iran is far worse. The USSR and the USA had a respect for consequences should they directly attack each other. There was no point in initiating a war when you would destroy your own country and standard of living. Millenial cults and doomsday religions actively seek consummation by destruction. This makes Iran far more likely to initiate a confrontation than the USSR.

"Millenial cults and doomsday religions" doesn't really describe Iran very well. In the sense of not at all. But hey, denhumazing it's ennemy in order to justify any action against it is a game the US has mastered over the year. Sad people still fall for it.

 

[Tricky]

So Iran is more important then Cuba? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a biger dictator then Raúl Castro? I hope Obama ask Raúl Castro to change Cuba. Probaly nothing will change in Cuba and Raúl Castro will be just like his brother Fidel Castro.

Iran is much more important than Cuba. Cuba is a tiny, impoverished island nation whose only threat to the US is their proximity, a threat that is only important if a major power sends them weapons. By all accounts, there are no missiles in Cuba now, nor are they in any sort of position to get any. Neither do they have any important exports, as both rum and cigars are quite easily made in other places. For more than fifty years, the intransigence of Castro and the US has been depriving Cuba of their most valuable resource. Tourism.

If you want to talk about dangerous dictatorships, then the first entry on your list should be Saudi Arabia, yet we deal with them. Why not with Iran or Cuba?

 

[Darth Rotor]

The comparison of Iran to the USSR misses the real threat posed by Iran. A much better comparison would be with Nazi Germany.

How so?

Other than a stated dislike for Jews, what do Iran in 2008 and Germany in 1938 have in common?

Look at a few indicators:

Relative strength of economy
Geographic location
Relative power
Population
Territorial issues with neighboring states
Ethnic minorities in neighboring states

Of note to Americans:

Some sympathies in late 1930's among Americans of German descent and Isolationists were on Germany's side.

Does Iran have a similar constituency here in America?

I don't think the comparison stacks up too well.

Germany was trying to return as one of the five great powers of Europe, and thus the world. At the time, the Powers of Europe were the powers of the globe, with US and Japan added as major powers.

Iran is a middling power, at best, globally, though a big dog in the Persian Gulf. When it comes to pecking orders, and who is or is not a power, Iran isn't even in the top ten, and never was.

As to Obama and Chamberlain, you are comparing a British Tory and an American Democrat, which I find amusing. (Chamberlain was a Conservative, and was PM of the UK 1937 - 1940.)

What territories do you think Obama will cede to Iran?

Who will he sell out, as the Czechs were sold out?

Please elaborate, your sound byte needs more meat. It lacks flavor as stated.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

But hey, denhumazing it's ennemy in order to justify any action against it is a game the US has mastered over the year. Sad people still fall for it.

Yeah, only America would do such a thing.

The Ayatollah Khomeini on the US: The Great Satan

Hugo Chavez

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez tore into his U.S. counterpart and his U.N. hosts Wednesday, likening President Bush to the devil and telling the General Assembly that its system is "worthless."

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. "And it smells of sulfur still today."

Chavez accused Bush of having spoken "as if he owned the world" and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement. (Watch Hugo Chavez cross himself as he tells world leaders he can smell the devil -- 1:06)

"As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html

Guy sounds almost like a certain Canadian official, M Ducros, who referred to President Bush as a moron.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/11/21/moron021121.html

PM Chretien then kindly damned Bush with faint praise: Bush is "a friend of mine. He's not a moron at all."

Got to hand it to our dear Canadian friends --civilized, even in insult.

Cheers.

DR

 

[Corsair 115]

Obama has already promised that we will meet the 3rd demand...

There is implicit in this statement the assumption that what a politician pledges to do during a campaign will be what he/she actually does when in office. I would suggest the correlation between what is pledged during a campaign and what is actually done when in office is not particularly high.

Guy sounds almost like a certain Canadian official, M Ducros, who referred to President Bush as a moron.

Not one of our better political moments.

 

[varwoche]

If you want to talk about dangerous dictatorships, then the first entry on your list should be Saudi Arabia, yet we deal with them. Why not with Iran or Cuba?

If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing.

 

[chipmunk stew]

If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing.

Don't forget tucking tail and returning home in shame.

 

[Texas]

What territories do you think Obama will cede to Iran?

Iraq, Lebanon.

Who will he sell out, as the Czechs were sold out?

If he follows Jimmy Carter's approach, Israel.

 

[Texas]

If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing.

I think the description you are looking for is a long term alliance with a country that has fought by our side in a war, that has supplied us with oil for generations and that has overruled OPEC on many occasions to increase supply when needed. A government that despite having the 2 holiest sites in Islam has stood with us at great risk to their own positions against the extremists in their midst.

 

[Tricky]

I think the description you are looking for is a long term alliance with a country that has fought by our side in a war.

I am unaware of any significant military contributions that the Saudis have made to any of our wars. Their participation could be at best called "symbolic".

...that has supplied us with oil for generations and that has overruled OPEC on many occasions to increase supply when needed.

For which they charge us, and for which in return, receive our protection.

A government that despite having the 2 holiest sites in Islam has stood with us at great risk to their own positions against the extremists in their midst.

There is some risk at being ANY country in the Mideast, but having more money than any other country and having the biggest dog on the block guarding your backside makes that risk considerably less, at least for the rich people in SA.

The problem though is not the rich people, for the most part. It is the common people. They are brutally repressed, especially women. They are deprived of anything resembling democracy. They are furious with their leadership but without much power to do anything about it. (The Saudis don't have much of an army, but they have one HECK of a police force.)

There is a very good, though admittedly biased book called Sleeping with the Devil which is about our long-term relationship with the Saud family and what it has entailed. It can be difficult to read because huge sections have been excised by the censors because of "national security" reasons. It can also be difficult to read because it is horrifying. The way the Saud family treats the people and the shameless and brutal way they retain power can be rather gut-wrenching.

Yes we should deal with them. We should deal with everyone. No, we shouldn't support them just because they have lots of oil. They are just as evil as Iran, Cuba or North Korea. To ignore this makes us the worst kind of hypocrites. And the people of Saudi Arabia know it. Why do you think the majority of 9-11 terrorists were from there? Why would they attack "their ally"?

 

[Texas]

I am unaware of any significant military contributions that the Saudis have made to any of our wars. Their participation could be at best called "symbolic".

They provided both air and ground forces in the first Gulf War and acquitted themselves very well. They also absorbed numerous Scud attacks in their cities.

For which they charge us, and for which in return, receive our protection.

Yes we pay for their oil. We also have mutual defense pacts with them just as we have with the EU.

There is some risk at being ANY country in the Mideast, but having more money than any other country and having the biggest dog on the block guarding your backside makes that risk considerably less, at least for the rich people in SA

.

You completely ignored the main 2 reasons for much of the religious oppression in Saudi Arabia.

The problem though is not the rich people, for the most part. It is the common people. They are brutally repressed, especially women. They are deprived of anything resembling democracy. They are furious with their leadership but without much power to do anything about it. (The Saudis don't have much of an army, but they have one HECK of a police force.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#History
I know about the religious oppression, I lived in Kingdom for 6 years. How do you know they are furious with their leadership? The populace lives under religious law yes BUT Saudi Arabia has a very high per capita living standard of living and modern infrastructure, modern educational system with over 20 universities all free to both men and women. There is one foreign worker for every 5 Saudi citizens and one of the main reasons for their very strict laws is a result of that.

Yes we should deal with them. We should deal with everyone. No, we shouldn't support them just because they have lots of oil. They are just as evil as Iran, Cuba or North Korea. To ignore this makes us the worst kind of hypocrites. And the people of Saudi Arabia know it. Why do you think the majority of 9-11 terrorists were from there? Why would they attack "their ally"?

This is just plain silly. The hijackers were followers of OBL. OBL was kicked out of SA due to his attempts to overthrow the government because of the alliance. To put SA on the same level of Iran, Cuba and especially North Korea is specious at best.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If it's to be said that Obama intends to appease Iran, then we need a new verb for what the US does with Saudi -- a verb that that encompasses actively supporting, groveling and ass-kissing on top of appeasing.

"Romping hand-in-hand together through flower-strewn meadows"?

Now, let's hear it from the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council:

If someone knows that he is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is free to do so ... The lawfulness of his action is in fighting an enemy who is fighting Muslims and came for war.​

Still, heck, it's just a fatwa.

But we mustn't talk to the Iranians, that would be appeasement.