Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US message, strength, influence, global, Islam nations,

middle east north africa Cairo extremists Islam Iraq afghans 2012

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:10 AM

McCain was on Face the nation,
and he was laying out some things about how our admin is showing weak not strong, no more experienced than three years ago, this video of Barack speech in Cairo then,

now I don't agree with everything John McCain but he had some points here, the U.S. pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan with the nation left behind there having no solid leadership with clear goals and ability shows weak to the world..
But also how we tell Israel don't do it rather than telling Tehran don't do it shows Tehran weak; he says we show to the nations over there that we have no clear tells, no clear intentions, no clear goals and leadership showing.

McCain also told how this is not just about some movie no one saw, it's about the extreme Islamists spreading it, and urging out the mobs, the strife in the streets and bombers, it's all a power play.

Now, if we do this commitment against Iran and strikes alongside Israel, won't that make us More involved in the middle east? more mired in it? can Never get out? and that we must make an agreement with Israel to do what NetanY said, draw a red line for Tehran.

And on top of that he says we MUST help the Syrian people; so won't that make us even more mired in it?

The next guy, I think it was that Times guy, Friedman or whats his name? he told how the right wing strongmen are sunseting, my words, over there, it's all change and flux and the people come into the power vacuums, and how it's now a power play like John said, over who will run things, and these extreme Islamists are determined it will be them and using anything, US weak goal or show, some silly movie, rile up everyone, chaos, suicide, violence, bombers, video messages, imams, anything they can in their power play.

So, should U.S. make that red line for Tehran even if it mires us in? should they make clear involvement messages and leadership? should they draw lines for the new supposedly democratic leaders over there in Tripoli, Cairo, across middle east? oh maybe draw red lines for everyone, with carrying a big stick type signals and message and influence?

"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#2 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:54 PM

What we must not do (to paraphrase Andrew Sullivan) is outsource US foreign policy to the Likud.  

If Netanyahu feels so strongly that Iran MUST be struck NOW NOW NOW or Israel will be wiped off the map, then let him do it. Israel has one of the most well-trained, well-equipped military forces in the history of the world.  Netanyahu could give the order to nuke Iran if he chose to do so.

Or wait... could he?  

The American President can unilaterally order any military operation he wants anywhere in the world.  He just has to pick up the phone.  The Israeli Prime Minister, on the other hand, must seek prior authorization for military action from his Cabinet.  

And guess what?  Smart money says he doesn't have the votes.  On his own cabinet.  

Doesn't that say a lot about Israel's true assessment of the Iran situation today versus, say, a month ago or six months ago or even a year ago?  If Israel's own Security Cabinet thought that an existential threat was coming to a boil, they would do everything they could to save themselves; acting unilaterally, if necessary.  Of course, if the US thought an existential threat to Israel was coming to a boil, Israel wouldn't have to act unilaterally.  Indeed, they might not have to act at all.  (See: Gulf War 1.)  History has proved that the US has Israel's back.  

So what's Netanyahu actually up to?  

Well, it occurs to me -- apropos of nothing, mind you -- that there's a presidential election coming up in 6 weeks or so...  I know, it's a long shot.  I mean, one of our closest allies trying to throw the election to the candidate he thinks he has a better shot of controlling?  Doesn't seem like the sort of thing a friend would do . . .

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#3 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:42 AM

View PostBklnScott, on 16 September 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

What we must not do (to paraphrase Andrew Sullivan) is outsource US foreign policy to the Likud.  

If Netanyahu feels so strongly that Iran MUST be struck NOW NOW NOW or Israel will be wiped off the map, then let him do it. Israel has one of the most well-trained, well-equipped military forces in the history of the world.  Netanyahu could give the order to nuke Iran if he chose to do so.

Or wait... could he?  

The American President can unilaterally order any military operation he wants anywhere in the world.  He just has to pick up the phone.  The Israeli Prime Minister, on the other hand, must seek prior authorization for military action from his Cabinet.  

And guess what?  Smart money says he doesn't have the votes.  On his own cabinet.  

Doesn't that say a lot about Israel's true assessment of the Iran situation today versus, say, a month ago or six months ago or even a year ago?  If Israel's own Security Cabinet thought that an existential threat was coming to a boil, they would do everything they could to save themselves; acting unilaterally, if necessary.  Of course, if the US thought an existential threat to Israel was coming to a boil, Israel wouldn't have to act unilaterally.  Indeed, they might not have to act at all.  (See: Gulf War 1.)  History has proved that the US has Israel's back.  

So what's Netanyahu actually up to?  

Well, it occurs to me -- apropos of nothing, mind you -- that there's a presidential election coming up in 6 weeks or so...  I know, it's a long shot.  I mean, one of our closest allies trying to throw the election to the candidate he thinks he has a better shot of controlling?  Doesn't seem like the sort of thing a friend would do . . .

Does an objection to the impression that Likud (or even Israeli Labour party) dictate that we should not support the existence of Israel?

Certainly the IDF is well trained, but according to some buzz, the US has said we would not resupply their air force if they launched an attack in Iran.

Opposition in Isreal to a strike often centers on such a strike not being decicive enough.
Short of regime change, Iran would be able to reconstitue a nuclear program in a few months.
And without perfect knowledge of where to strike, the kind of operation Israel could mount might not be effective enough.

Moderate Sunni Arab states (or monarchies) fear Iran's push for the bomb.
But for them to be on the same side as Israel is politically problematic.

The suggestion that this sabre rattling is mere political theatre is speculative.
It attributes motive where we cannot know it.
Which is a natural human response to explain complex situations in which we have limited information.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#4 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:26 AM

View PostDarthMarley, on 17 September 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 16 September 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

What we must not do (to paraphrase Andrew Sullivan) is outsource US foreign policy to the Likud.  

If Netanyahu feels so strongly that Iran MUST be struck NOW NOW NOW or Israel will be wiped off the map, then let him do it. Israel has one of the most well-trained, well-equipped military forces in the history of the world.  Netanyahu could give the order to nuke Iran if he chose to do so.

Or wait... could he?  

The American President can unilaterally order any military operation he wants anywhere in the world.  He just has to pick up the phone.  The Israeli Prime Minister, on the other hand, must seek prior authorization for military action from his Cabinet.  

And guess what?  Smart money says he doesn't have the votes.  On his own cabinet.  

Doesn't that say a lot about Israel's true assessment of the Iran situation today versus, say, a month ago or six months ago or even a year ago?  If Israel's own Security Cabinet thought that an existential threat was coming to a boil, they would do everything they could to save themselves; acting unilaterally, if necessary.  Of course, if the US thought an existential threat to Israel was coming to a boil, Israel wouldn't have to act unilaterally.  Indeed, they might not have to act at all.  (See: Gulf War 1.)  History has proved that the US has Israel's back.  

So what's Netanyahu actually up to?  

Well, it occurs to me -- apropos of nothing, mind you -- that there's a presidential election coming up in 6 weeks or so...  I know, it's a long shot.  I mean, one of our closest allies trying to throw the election to the candidate he thinks he has a better shot of controlling?  Doesn't seem like the sort of thing a friend would do . . .

Does an objection to the impression that Likud (or even Israeli Labour party) dictate that we should not support the existence of Israel?

There seems to be something missing from your sentence above -- "the impression that Likud (or even Labour)" ... what?  Regardless of what goes next in that sentence, though, nothing could "dictate that we should not support the existence of Israel."  Clearly, the US does support the existence of Israel.  The US is Israel's closest ally.  (Though Israel is not our closest ally, as its Prime Minister's actions in the last few days attest.  Our closest allies would never take complicated and sensitive diplomatic discussions on war and peace to the airwaves.)

Quote

Certainly the IDF is well trained, but according to some buzz, the US has said we would not resupply their air force if they launched an attack in Iran.

If Israel truly believes that it must act or cease to exist, wouldn't such logistical questions be trumped?  Can't be resupplied if you're dead.  

Quote

Opposition in Isreal to a strike often centers on such a strike not being decicive enough.
Short of regime change, Iran would be able to reconstitue a nuclear program in a few months.
And without perfect knowledge of where to strike, the kind of operation Israel could mount might not be effective enough.

As you say: short of regime change, nothing we can do militarily would have the desired effect.  Therefore, we should continue to pursue other options, including covert action, sanctions, and carrot/stick diplomacy.  

Quote

Moderate Sunni Arab states (or monarchies) fear Iran's push for the bomb.
But for them to be on the same side as Israel is politically problematic.

For them to be PUBLICLY on the same side as Israel, yes.  Privately?  That's another matter.  

Quote

The suggestion that this sabre rattling is mere political theatre is speculative.
It attributes motive where we cannot know it.
Which is a natural human response to explain complex situations in which we have limited information.

Can we know what's in Netanyahu's heart?  No.  Can we make trenchant observations based on his behavior over the past few days, his ties to the religious right and necon factions of the GOP, his personal relationship with Romney, and his known dislike for Obama?  I think so, yes.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#5 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:29 PM

The missing words were probably meant to be something like "dictate our foreign policy" mirroring your previous post.

If Israel were to launch an attack, and not have an air force afterwards, it changes the calculation.
Iran's terrorist proxies are global, yet are most active on the Israeli border.

Even so, if the goal is to prevent war, is doing nothing the best option?
Is a containment strategy the best option?

Given the stated intention of the destruction of Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian government, why should we fail to take their stated intent as their actual intent?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#6 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:55 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 17 September 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

The missing words were probably meant to be something like "dictate our foreign policy" mirroring your previous post.

Ah -- Thanks for the clarification.  

Quote

If Israel were to launch an attack, and not have an air force afterwards, it changes the calculation.

Why?  If Israel believes that they must launch an attack or cease to exist, then there is no "afterwards" if they don't launch the attack, so I don't follow why you think it changes the calculation.  

Quote

Even so, if the goal is to prevent war, is doing nothing the best option?

If the goal is to prevent war, then starting one pre-emptively would seem to be counterproductive.  

Quote

Is a containment strategy the best option?

I'm not sure what you mean by containment since that is only part of what we are doing (e.g., sanctions).  We're also, and more to the point, fighting a targeted, covert war against their nuclear program now while still pursuing sanctions and diplomacy.  We can't do any of that if we start bombing them... and as you yourself say, bombing them won't do much to get us what we want (an Iran that abandons its nuclear ambitions).  Bombing them would have the effect of causing the Iranian people to rally around the Mullahs -- something the Mullahs could never accomplish on their own -- and might well make them decide to move forward with the building of a bomb, a decision they apparently have not made at this point.  

One of the reasons this situation is so sensitive is that we could take actions that end up CREATING the outcome we're trying to avoid.  

Quote

Given the stated intention of the destruction of Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian government, why should we fail to take their stated intent as their actual intent?

No one is failing to take them at their word.  However, if they managed to build a nuke and then deploy it against Israel (or anyone), Iran would cease to exist.  That's a certainty.  I think it would be a big mistake to assume that Iran wants to destroy Israel so badly that they are willing to commit national suicide to do it.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#7 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:11 PM

food for thought- here's a Toronto guy with a nice analysis of what might be, and muslem nations, and, if- http://www.aljazeera...4236970294.html , why everyone must rethink, pause and ponder and imagine,, plus he quotes Rashed in Haaretz , and that piece is worth the read, what all consequences, and are the sabre rattlers, mostly rightwingers in both countries, pondering enough?
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#8 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:54 AM

View PostBklnScott, on 17 September 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

No one is failing to take them at their word.  However, if they managed to build a nuke and then deploy it against Israel (or anyone), Iran would cease to exist.  That's a certainty.  I think it would be a big mistake to assume that Iran wants to destroy Israel so badly that they are willing to commit national suicide to do it.

I'm significantly curtainling the quote nesting here.

In terms of how lack of US resupply changes the calculation, it is simple.
While Israel could act to possibly prevent Iran from deploying, such an attack will leave them weaker on other fronts.
If they attack and the US resupplies, then they might survive the counterpunch from Gaza and Lebanon from Iranian proxies. If the US doesn't, then they are less able to weather the counterpunch.
That is what changes the calculation.
Also, the matter of preventing deployment for 6 months to 2 years is a factor.
I think we agreed that regime change is the only workable long term solution, unless there is a policy capitulation on the part of Iran (anti-prolif treaty, IAEA inspection regime, etc.).
Israeli voices against pre-emptive attack are reasonable, but may be wrong.

The goal is not to prevent "war" but to prevent nuclear war against Israel, and to prevent an the Iranian theocracy from becoming an entrenched hegemon in the region.
The Sunni Gulf states might not mind Israel biting the dust, but don't want to bow towards Persia.
There is a racial element to that; Arabs can be bigots against Persians.

With regards to containment, what I am referencing is the argument that goes something like "We dealt with a nuclear armed hostile Soviet block, and didn't have to go to hot war with Russia" which Ron Paul probably articulates best.

Of course an attack against Iran woould trigger a nationalist response.
Balanced against Iran having nuclear weapons, I would favor that option, though indeed, there is great risk with any of the policy options available.

The final part I did quote is a case I have heard before.
I balance claims of Iran being a rational regime against not only the public statments, but the personal ones as well. There is a strain of Muslim eschatology that believes there will "in the final days" be a slaughter of Jews. Just like Israel has to occasionally stop some evangelical Xian from plotting to blow up the Dome of the Rock (in order to rebuild the Temple and usher in the "end times") the prospect of Iran being run by leaders who hold to such beliefs is frightening. Much like worries about Bush getting instructions from god scares American liberals, apocalyptic poetry from Iranian leaders is less a matter of projection, and more a matter of interpretation.
If Iran were a rational regime, would they hang suspected homosexuals? Would they ban "western" haircuts?
Can we rely upon "rational" non-suicidal behavior from a culture that embraces death for the cause?
Put differently, why should we expect a people who will kill themselves in order to kill as many Jews as possible to fear national destruction, as long as they kill many Jews or Americans?

For decades, Iran has had nothing to fear from their outrageous conduct.
The embassy hostages, the Beruit barracks bombing, Khobar Towers, Argentina after they democratized and quit helping Iran's nuke program, all went unpunished. Do the national leaders of Iran have any reason to expect their next hostile act will meet any resistance?
What evidences do we have that they will respond rationally?
Isn't that just hoping for the best?

Edited by DarthMarley, 18 September 2012 - 08:56 AM.

"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#9 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:06 AM

View Postoffworlder, on 17 September 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

food for thought- here's a Toronto guy with a nice analysis of what might be, and muslem nations, and, if- http://www.aljazeera...4236970294.html , why everyone must rethink, pause and ponder and imagine,, plus he quotes Rashed in Haaretz , and that piece is worth the read, what all consequences, and are the sabre rattlers, mostly rightwingers in both countries, pondering enough?

If the author is to be believed, then Iran is not trying to build a bomb, and we should all stop worrying about it.

All of this has happened before...

http://www.city-jour..._jefferson.html

Quote

There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

The appeasement versus confrontation argument is one we had between our second and third presidents.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#10 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:11 AM

First, his main point we must all read and think, is not whether or not Iran... it is what will happen, what is, with all the other nations and groups, and what environment and climate and trouble for years the U.S. faces, real stuff now, and oil, after U.S. participates in or backs an attack- and it is clear to all that even an attack by Israel will in all mooslem nations be US, attack by Americans, death to America, all that... Two, our SIT now, like in SITREP, is so totally different and complicated compared, those 1804 times, and yes I have read exensively that historical period and the Med and North Africa and US Navy and Marines back then, so I can say- in the Toronto piece we can see the laundry list, it is so different now... Three, who said appeasement, the right wing always use that word if any Democrat talks diplomacy over arms; no one is saying appeasement and I should not even have to say that sheesh. Now I must go to work, peace, out.

now I'll put the Rashid piece, Ha'aretz, they do have an intercept for login/reg, but that seems to be on a second click, the link should open full page without it, so what if Iran is attacked? what if, for US, for Israel, for EU, for mooslem nations round 3/4 world? damage relations even in Indonesia and Malaya?, not to mention Cairo, or just all ramifications?
http://www.haaretz.c...uslims-1.429646
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: middle east, north africa, Cairo, extremists, Islam, Iraq, afghans, 2012

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users