This is why obama will not do anything about iran

[Texashiker]

I could've sworn he op said he was a libertarian.

I am a Libertarian.

Bush had his reasons for not killing osama, and obama had his reasons.

 

[Jaskalas]

I could've sworn he op said he was a libertarian.

Do not conflate domestic policy with foreign policy. Especially with regards to nuclear proliferation.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

lol @ this thread

Iran is the 2nd largest importer of oil to China, we go over there we all die. Wake up nimrods.

 

[Oyeve]

lol @ this thread

Iran is the 2nd largest importer of oil to China, we go over there we all die. Wake up nimrods.

Word. The US will NOT invade Iran, at least not directly.

 

[Texashiker]

Word. The US will NOT invade Iran, at least not directly.

As long as obama is president, I doubt we take any action against iran.

If obama is reelected, I look for iran to have a nuclear weapon before the end of obamas second term.

This will leave a nightmare situation for the president after obama.

 

[diesbudt]

Word. The US will NOT invade Iran, at least not directly.

The best war is a subtle propaganda war.

Then blame France.

 

[diesbudt]

As long as obama is president, I doubt we take any action against iran.

If obama is reelected, I look for iran to have a nuclear weapon before the end of obamas second term.

This will leave a nightmare situation for the president after obama.

Not really. all a nuclear weapon does is give a country a stronger bark. Any country foolish enough to set off one of those will have the entire planet/U.N rain down on their parade.

 

[thraashman]

As long as obama is president, I doubt we take any action against iran.

If obama is reelected, I look for iran to have a nuclear weapon before the end of obamas second term.

This will leave a nightmare situation for the president after obama.

Um ... Obama has enacted heavy sanctions on Iran. I guess we coulda gone with the McCain approach who wanted to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". Because that wouldn't have started a massive war or anything.

Quite frankly in this situation there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. The wrong way is the way the GOP would do it.

 

[diesbudt]

Um ... Obama has enacted heavy sanctions on Iran. I guess we coulda gone with the McCain approach who wanted to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". Because that wouldn't have started a massive war or anything.

Quite frankly in this situation there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. The wrong way is the way the GOP would do it.

Catchy tune there.

Lets just whipe the middle east off the face of the earth with explosives and be done with it. That area of the world has seen nothing but conflict since even the early days of Mesopotamia.

 

[Texashiker]

Um ... Obama has enacted heavy sanctions on Iran.

Sanctions?

Have sanctions worked against cuba, north korea, vietnam (trade sanctions),,, iran?

Russia, china and india are still doing business with iran

 

[IAteYourMother]

Did he know the actual whereabouts of the target?
such that he could send in a small team to get him.

Please indicate when that situation existed.

They did have an opportunity in Tora Bora.

 

[Doppel]

That is the main question right there.

What happens when a rogue nation positions itself where an attack would be counter-productive.

Sanctions are not going to work. But things are going to reach a head where "something" has to be done. Israel does not have the ability to sustain an extended war with iran.

Now that the muslim brotherhood has taken power in egypt, any attack on iran by israel might cause egypt to attack israel.

The point at which something has to be done is when Iran attacks another country. Until then it's just another pissant nation with more bark than bite and no will to use whatever bite it has now or will in the future, most likely. I don't care what their president says: Iran will not attack Israel first. WILL NOT. Countries are not in the habit of committing suicide, whether they pretend to be Islamist or not.

 

[chucky2]

An anonymous source written about in a book from an established hardcore right wing writer who's previous works include a serious discussion about the applicability of the tv show "24" to US foreign policy. Absolutely fucking ironclad.

Lets not bring Harry Reid's tax claims about Romney into this now...

 

[Oyeve]

Sanctions?

Have sanctions worked against cuba, north korea, vietnam (trade sanctions),,, iran?

Russia, china and india are still doing business with iran

Word, our "sanctioning" punishement has just made china the real #1 threat and we allowed it. I also blame apple. No, but seriously, its all apples fault.

 

[Texashiker]

The point at which something has to be done is when Iran attacks another country. Until then it's just another pissant nation with more bark than bite and no will to use whatever bite it has now or will in the future, most likely. I don't care what their president says: Iran will not attack Israel first. WILL NOT. Countries are not in the habit of committing suicide, whether they pretend to be Islamist or not.

obama is in a catch 22. He does not want to do anything about iran, but we need a reason to have a large military presence in the middle east.

Word, our "sanctioning" punishement has just made china the real #1 threat and we allowed it. I also blame apple. No, but seriously, its all apples fault.

The less oil iran sales to europe, means more oil for china and india.

 

[Moonbeam]

We know that fearful children grow up conservative. The only real question is not about Iran but what to do about this fear. A child who is fearful of his shadow may run home whereas another finds a girl friend there or survive where one that isn't afraid of a lion's shadow doesn't breed. Evolution may be struggling to find a balance between conservative and liberal reactions to things.

I think it is natural for folk to fear power, like the most powerful military in the world, but if you live in a country protected by one you see less of the down side.

The ideal, it seems to me then, is to have such power and never ever use it inappropriately. The only way power will ever not be feared, or at least mitigated reasonably is by a long track record of responsibility, I think. We blew that with all our wars since WW2 in my opinion.

 

[Texashiker]

The only way power will ever not be feared, or at least mitigated reasonably is by a long track record of responsibility, I think. We blew that with all our wars since WW2 in my opinion.

If we can not secure our borders to stop illegal immigrants from walking into the nation, how are we supposed to stop a nuclear device?

The US government has been very irresponsible with securing our borders.

Then there is internal security. How many of our dams are secure? How about our bridges? How about our power plants and refineries?

 

[hal2kilo]

If we can not secure our borders to stop illegal immigrants from walking into the nation, how are we supposed to stop a nuclear device?

The US government has been very irresponsible with securing our borders.

Then there is internal security. How many of our dams are secure? How about our bridges? How about our power plants and refineries?

Secure our borders, are you kidding?

We can't even secure the deepest secure part of a submarine base through 3 layers of fences by octogenarians on our own soil.

 

[K1052]

If we can not secure our borders to stop illegal immigrants from walking into the nation, how are we supposed to stop a nuclear device?

You don't just run down to the local black market and pick up a thermonuclear weapon like it's an AK47. Nuclear nations are responsible for the safeguarding of their arsenals, allowing those weapons to fall into the hands of a 3rd party does not absolve a nation of responsibility. In this case 'responsibility' means response in kind.

 

[Texashiker]

You don't just run down to the local black market and pick up a thermonuclear weapon like it's an AK47. Nuclear nations are responsible for the safeguarding of their arsenals, allowing those weapons to fall into the hands of a 3rd party does not absolve a nation of responsibility. In this case 'responsibility' means response in kind.

Since when do people with radical religious views use logic?

I understand your point. But we are talking about a nation that hangs homosexuals.

There are radicals out there that believe the world is to be ruled by sharia law. We can not reason with people like that.

 

[amish]

They did have an opportunity in Tora Bora.

ha, our "allies" let him slip out the back door and in to Pakistan.

 

[Siddhartha]

Catchy tune there.

Lets just whipe the middle east off the face of the earth with explosives and be done with it. That area of the world has seen nothing but conflict since even the early days of Mesopotamia.

Do you really want to starve, maim, torture, and murder millions of men, women, and children because you do not like the area's politics?

 

[umbrella39]

You have always demonstrated your fears and broken thinking OP... I don't think your inane paranoia is anything to concern ourselves over.

 

[Texashiker]

You have always demonstrated your fears and broken thinking OP....

My thinking gives me a good reason to stockpile food and buy more guns.

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, we have a pile of bogus US foreign policy assumtions on this thread.

But at the end of the day, the person in the oval office is not only the most powerful
man in the world, but also is responsible for upholding the best interests of the American people. As said US President is responsible for balancing Risk vs. Reward.

As we can almost certainly say, GWB&co, operating on only a fantasy, horribly blundered in both Iraq and Iran. In assuming either place would be a cake walk, as I can only say, to date, 4500+ dead Americans, and maybe 3+ Trillion dollars, we, the American people won absolutely nothing but we also sure lost a bunch.

As now we switch to future mid-east options, and ask questions about the Arabs, the Israelis, and Iran, in maybe the most explosive powder keg region in the entire world. And also note, as those three broad national groups all have differing foreign policy goals of their own.

First we can maybe discuss the end goals of Arabs who for all practical purposes make up make up, perhaps nearly 99% of the 300 or so million population of the mid-east. But in terms of world oil reserves, the Arabs own a huge percentage of proven oil reserves. In terms of Arab mid-east nations, they used to trust the USA and now no longer do. As those mid-east Arab nations don't demand a US pro-Arab foreign policy but will no longer tolerate such a totally one sided biased US pro-Israeli foreign policy. Its easy for Romney to shoot off his mouth and advocate a pro-Israeli US forerign policy, but there are great risks and few rewards for the people of the USA.