The Russians and Iranians Are Howling With Laughter

25 posts / 0 new

It's one thing to have this as your strategy, but another thing completely to announce it to the world.

The only explanation I can think of for saying this in public is that his speech writers are running out of ideas for The One to discuss in public.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

It's the Presidential equivalent of walking around with a kick me sign taped to your back.

Sawdust's picture
Sawdust
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You're not too bright if that's what you think, or maybe you just don't like Obama. At times an adult must take charge and perform their job responsibly and pragmatically. Obama's open discussion is one of those events and indicates that he takes being a world leader seriously and so sees little to gain from appealing to right-wing fools in preference for providing strong evidence that the U.S. is for engagement and ending beliigerence.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So Jeff, do you think this makes the Iranians more or less likely to nuke Israel?

I would love to play poker for money with President Obama.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
So Jeff, do you think this makes the Iranians more or less likely to nuke Israel?

As likely, which is not likely. Iran knows what would happen if they used their nuclear weapons. the value in nuclear weapons is in their existence and not in their use.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote PeeWee Returns:

It's one thing to have this as your strategy, but another thing completely to announce it to the world.

The only explanation I can think of for saying this in public is that his speech writers are running out of ideas for The One to discuss in public.

Nuke arms control has been one of Obama's earliest ideas. This announcement should not be a surprise. Nor should the ones to come in future, perhaps eliminating the SAC. As for announcing to the world, remember that he intends to reduce the nuke threat and needs other powers to cooperate. This multi-lateral disarmament/control seems prudent to me.

maraden's picture
maraden
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote PeeWee Returns:

So Jeff, do you think this makes the Iranians more or less likely to nuke Israel?

Now who's laughing? Just everybody who is reading your post.

When and if Iran develops a bomb and a delivery system, Israel has the means to remove the threat immediately. Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself. Israel has the latest electronics, GPS guided delivery system, hundreds or thousands of nukes and the backing of the United States, Britian and NATO. Ahmadinejad is a threat to the Iranian people, not to Israel nor to the US. Let's get real.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

People all over the world are laughing with relief that "Obama tightens rules for nuclear arsenal."

Quote The Times: The release of the new policy opened a week of extraordinary global nuclear diplomacy for Mr Obama. Tomorrow he flies to Prague to sign a new arms reduction treaty with Russia. Next week he hosts 47 world leaders for a summit on nuclear security, the biggest gathering by a US president since the founding of the United Nations in 1945.
Maybe our President won't automatically be regarded as the most feared person in the world now that President Obama has dialed back the first-strike policy of FORMER President Bush and the neo-con bushwhackers.

LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Now why would the anti-Christ want to reduce the world's nuclear arsenal?

Hmm, you reichwingers work on that one for us, would you?

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The issue is whether Israel is more or less likely to nuke Iran, Bozo. They are very jealous of their sole-nuke-power status. In fact, they have carried out long-standing plans not only for the bombing of the French made Osirak reactor (of which no proof of treaty violation ever emerged) by legendary terrorist Menachem Begin, they went so far as to devise a plan to balkanize and fragment into tribes all of the independent minded Middle-Eastern countries, beginning with Iraq, the most enlightened.

As we have seen, they used the United States to do it. And no country benefited from the Iraq war except Israel.

Take a look at this article in Ha Aretz from several years ago, Perles of wisdom for the Feithful, and the NeoCon white paper it references, A Clean Break:A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written for NutAndYahoo by Perle and the Wurmsers.

Too bad nobody had the sense to take out Dimona when the heroic and selfless Mordechai Vanunu exposed it.

ProudPrimate's picture
ProudPrimate
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
It's the Presidential equivalent of walking around with a kick me sign taped to your back.

No, it's the presidential equivalent of putting a guard on the belt drive of your table saw, where your kids are wandering in and out, or your wife with a long skirt comes out to say it's dinner time, while you are cutting up your stock.

It's called "responsible adult" — not a big word except at the beer joint.

ProudPrimate's picture
ProudPrimate
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What is it with the conservative male mind which has this sort of machismo-we-can-blow-you-up-bigger-and better-than-anyone, sort of view of the world?

Its just so incredibly unattractive, don't you know that?

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
What is it with the conservative male mind . . .

It has occurred to me that there are two organizational principles in the world:

  1. The Rule of Law, and
  2. the Authority Figure

In the second chapter of Genesis, we can see this played out in the story of Cain and Abel, but dimly. In the book of Daniel, it is laid out in clear terms. But I am convinced that it is the same in both instances.

In the former case, Abel represents the Old Paths, that of following the herds up to the highlands in the spring and down to the valleys in the fall. His ways were acceptable to Jehovah. Cain is the representative of what prehistorians call the Agricultural (or Agrarian) Revolution which took place in the Fertile Crescent, essentially Mesopotamia, some 10 kyBP. The early agriculturalists, it seems clear, were hated by the conservatives of their day, and also the God of those conservatives, for we read that

Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
and this rebuke by Jehovah was ultimately the cause of the "first murder".

In the book of Daniel, we read that Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream:

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
It turns out that the head of gold referred to Nebuchadnezzar himself, an oriental potentate of the first order, whose word overruled all other words that could be spoken.

The breast and arms of silver referred to a second kingdom that would replace his, that of the Darius the Mede and the Cyrus the Persian, who were in a cooperative rule. The characteristic of this kingdom was called "the Law of the Medes and the Persians, which altereth not". That is, once the decree was made, even the king could not change it. This could be looked upon as the beginnings of democracy.

John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience references a famous study, which is described in the Wikipedia article titled Authoritarian personality. There is a type of personality that desires to be under absolute authority, if not to wield it. To my mind, it is a fear of uncertainty — the kind of uncertainty I faced when I suddenly realized that the universe was, after all, empty and devoid of spirit beings, and that I was totally alone inside my own head, and every voice heard therein was my own.

It was cold and lonely and very tough for a few months, but now I quite prefer it!

ProudPrimate's picture
ProudPrimate
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I agree Proud Primate, it definitely has something to do with the whole sort of authoritarian figure view. I find most conservatives to be very dependent on needing to have a daddy figure, which seems to contradict their assertions that they are such rugged individuals.

In the 21st century, to still possess such a neo-conservative view of being able to bomb the rest of the world into oblivion (which the US can still do by the way), is rather neanderthal and backward. But I recognize the fear of change they have, and I suspect that plays a key role as well.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Here's a headline at UPI that makes my earlier point in this thread: Israel could opt for nuke strikes on Iran

ProudPrimate's picture
ProudPrimate
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I remember reading here at club Thom that Bush was so stupid for not having a dialog with rouge leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And that Obama would change all that nonsense.

What has changed?

Iran is closer to obtaining nuclear weapons.

kulak.2.1
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 6:39 pm

Ahmadinejad doesn't wear rouge — that's his natural color.

ProudPrimate's picture
ProudPrimate
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/      A lot more to negotiations than punditheads on sunday and fox know or would even understand.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/    works on mine click on left column menu items, they are current with apr 10 signing

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I remember reading here at club Thom that Bush was so stupid for not having a dialog with rouge leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And that Obama would change all that nonsense. What has changed? Iran is closer to obtaining nuclear weapons.

And Obama had hinted at opening a dialog but the Iranian hardliners obviously had internal issues to deal with that kept them from moving towards us. Iran having nuclear weapons isn't really a problem as their power is in their existence, not their use. It's a matter of national pride and little more, although certain extremist groups may see them as a great way to get rid of enemies as do those extremists did/do in the U.S. or any nuclear nation.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I don't agree. The administration appears to have the opinion that a) far fewer nuclear warheads are required for deterrence than we currently have and so we can decommission a lot, (b) having a lot of nuclear weapons increases the potential of the loss of nuclear material to non-state players, (c) North Korea and Iran can be constrained through (a) above and diplomacy. Whereas the neoconservatives were for aggressive saber rattling, this administration is not and therefore the game has changed and for the better.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24621.htm    has a video covering quite a few of the points made in the comments on this thread [even biblical antiquities] and what is now in Obama's hands [if it's international geopolitical poker instead of chess]. Since the links I keep pasting don't work, try the next post.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24621.htm

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I don't buy the conspiracy theory caliming that the Bush administration was complicit. There is a bunch of nonsense, such as the contention that the collapse of the buildings didn't "follow physics". Bull. That in and of itself is enough to ignore such "explanations". The Bush administration was at fault due to negligence, in focusing on Iraq and ignoring Al Qaeda, and handled the situation incompetently, as in immediately claiming that Bin Laden was the master mind when it was Khalid Sheik Mohammed and keeping U.S. in reserve during the invasion of Afghanistan to allow the predetermined invasion of Iraq and having no viable plan for an Iraq or Afghanistan occupation.

Let's get real.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Simulations are run with all security risks and threats, and the variables included are public response [and thus their acceptance of a varying degree of corrective actions]. The threats of terror attacks were known, and the opportunities it would provide were known, and all players briefed on both. The cost benefit analysis was considered a win to allow it. W got everything passed he wanted, everything including the Iraq war. Didn't get SocSec termination, darn. They also were not aware of how severe the attack would be, they figured a Cole, or Khobar, or first WTC bomb, they may've accepted the OK city level of collateral damage [mcveigh's words]. That's why the look on W's face in the book recital when he heard the degree of severity.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Has Kansas Found the Cure for the Reaganomics Disease?

Reaganomics is like a bad disease; It just keeps on spreading. Thanks to 34 years of failed Reaganomics, the gap between the wealthy elite in America and everyone else is at an all-time high.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system