Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

TToI:‘"Sparks fly"’ over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

JMS

By JMS
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Koolblue13

Koolblue13

Posted
Posted
Well yes, but so are drone strikes on random civilians across multiple countries, but there isn't much debate or complaint in the US about those.

Thinking of invading and occupying a place like Iran is a few hundred levels past murder.

Then again, I haven't actually heard anyone suggest doing that.

Yes, that is murder also. If you call the CiC a murderer, people get outraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Robert Griffin Experience

The Robert Griffin Experience

Posted
Posted

Sigh, the ****ing drones. The fact is, as much as I hate that Obama is doing it, to stop it would require several politically impossible changes in the nature of the American state itself (and really, let's be frank, capitalism itself) Nobody within the Overton Window will accept a total withdrawal of all military assets from the Middle East. No remotely relevant politician would say no to US military and political intervention abroad. It has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy since the end of WWII, and every president - EVERY president since 1944, has committed war crimes. The last non-war criminal president we've had was Herbert ****ing Hoover. Even Jimmy Carter - Jimmy ****ing Carter! - committed war crimes. War crimes that would be capital offenses under Nuremberg. America is an imperial state, that's the way it is, and it will be until America collapses in some way or is overthrown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koolblue13

Koolblue13

Posted
Posted
LOL at folks who believe that Democrat and Republican foreign policy is different (or successful!)

:ols: Agreed.

I'm sure we are going to do something extremely different after the election.

I am very hopeful that Obama will continue to draw down troops, not back anybody in the ME, move away from religion and oil fueled foreign policy, etc.

I was hopeful last election too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
:ols: Agreed.

I'm sure we are going to do something extremely different after the election.

I am very hopeful that Obama will continue to draw down troops, not back anybody in the ME, move away from religion and oil fueled foreign policy, etc.

I was hopeful last election too.

Of all the limited hopes I had for him, this was the main disappointment to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Robert Griffin Experience

The Robert Griffin Experience

Posted
Posted
:ols: Agreed.

I'm sure we are going to do something extremely different after the election.

I am very hopeful that Obama will continue to draw down troops, not back anybody in the ME, move away from religion and oil fueled foreign policy, etc.

I was hopeful last election too.

Nobody electable in the next 20-30 years is going to significantly draw down our presence overseas. It is NOT happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gibbsisgod2006

Gibbsisgod2006

Posted
Posted
:ols: Agreed.

I'm sure we are going to do something extremely different after the election.

I am very hopeful that Obama will continue to draw down troops, not back anybody in the ME, move away from religion and oil fueled foreign policy, etc.

I was hopeful last election too.

Troops will draw down in Afghanistan but we will always back the Saudis and Israel in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Yeah, Saudi Arabia would have to start their own program to avoid getting strategically outflanked.

Why?...it is rumored they already purchased the targeting rights to several from Pakistan and negotiating out right purchase of some w/missiles from another

money does more than move mountains,and for each action there is a reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Meh, when Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups have are engaged in long term campaigns of launching rockets at you, it's a bit silly to claim that the Israeli's are the ones the started the conflict.

I didn't say Israel started the conflict. I said in her many wars, Israel struck first more often than not. Israel would always say their actions were necessary, or in a reaction to some provocation. If Israel attacks Iran tomorrow, they will say it was provoked. That is all neuanced. What is not neuanced is who attacked whom first. which is all my metric was trying to highlight.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------

http://debka.com/article/22334/Massed-US-UK-French-navies-for-drill-simulating-breach-of-blocked-Hormuz

The third US aircraft carrier, USS Stennis, is moving into place off the Iranian Gulf coast to lead a 12-day naval exercise of 25 nations on Sept 16-27, that will include a large-scale minesweeping drill simulating the breaching of the Strait of Hormuz against Iranian efforts to block oil passage through the strategic waterway. President Barack Obama may see Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the last day of the exercise. He hopes to present him with proof of US readiness for military action against Iran and demonstrate that an Israeli strike is superfluous.

The Stennis will join two other aircraft carriers, the USS Enterprise and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and their strike groups, which are already on operational duty off the coast of Iran, ready for the drill which kicks off in the strategic Strait of Hormuz on Sept. 16

We don't typically deploy 3 aircraft carriers for a "show" of force.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 03:01 PM ----------

The US and Israel can do more damage through cyber attacks then Air Strikes. The way the Iranians have their nuclear facilities set up bunker buster would only do a certain amount of damage. However, Israel is not the only country in the middle east that is threaten by a nuclear Iran the Saudis are as well because the majority of the Saudis are Sunnies and they tend to not get only ****es. The other problem is that the Iranian would become the regional hegemon if they were able to produce nuclear weapons and they would flex its new found power in the region.

One of the things that makes us so uneasy about Iran getting nukes is the poliferation angle. If Iran got nukes, Saudi, Egypt would certainly follow suit and get a nucular arsanal of their own.

Iraq, Syria and Jordan wouldn't be far behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
LOL at folks who believe that Democrat and Republican foreign policy is different (or successful!)

LOL at Ron Paulites who see things in a binary manner.

If you don't think there is any difference between Bush/Cheney/Bolton/Wolfowitz foreign policy and Obama/Clinton/Albright foreign policy, you are nuts. Here's a hint - one of them attacked Iraq out of the blue as part of the PNAC blueprint. The other is resisting attacking Iran, rejecting that very same blueprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
LOL at Ron Paulites who see things in a binary manner.

If you don't think there is any difference between Bush/Cheney/Bolton/Wolfowitz foreign policy and Obama/Clinton/Albright foreign policy, you are nuts. Here's a hint - one of them attacked Iraq out of the blue as part of the PNAC blueprint. The other is resisting attacking Iran, rejecting that very same blueprint.

Livin the dream (world) huh man? I'll go ahead an watch the silliness of people thinking that interventionist policy is exclusive to the GOP.

Please go ahead an explain the fundamental foreign policy differences between Obama and Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
Livin the dream (world) huh man? I'll go ahead an watch the silliness of people thinking that interventionist policy is exclusive to the GOP.

Please go ahead an explain the fundamental foreign policy differences between Obama and Romney.

Not again. Yes, both are internationalist. But there are huge differences between them. Only if you come from the the farthest end of the isolationist spectrum do they look identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
Not again. Yes, both are internationalist. But there are huge differences between them. Only if you come from the the farthest end of the isolationist spectrum do they look identical.

still not hearing those "differences" you crowed a minute ago. The names of the enemy's may be different, maybe the means of warfare slightly different, but policy wise, not much different at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Not again. Yes, both are internationalist. But there are huge differences between them. Only if you come from the the farthest end of the isolationist spectrum do they look identical.

Isolationist roots run strong in this country. We were isolationists from GW's farewell address ( that's George Washington), until the beginning of WWII... ( WWI and wilson was an island of exception during this period ).... At the end of WWII, when Ike decided to become a republican he continued some of Roosevelt's policies noteable on foreign policy was engagement in the affiars of other countries... NATO, UN.... etc... Which pushed the isolationists who still existed to the fring of the us political system. Notable champions of this policy are Ron Paul who seems to like many policies from the 1930's and ealier... Pat Buchannon.... and some tea party folks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koolblue13

Koolblue13

Posted
Posted
LOL at Ron Paulites who see things in a binary manner.

If you don't think there is any difference between Bush/Cheney/Bolton/Wolfowitz foreign policy and Obama/Clinton/Albright foreign policy, you are nuts. Here's a hint - one of them attacked Iraq out of the blue as part of the PNAC blueprint. The other is resisting attacking Iran, rejecting that very same blueprint.

I do agree with you or at least I really want to. I feel a bit safer with Obama as CiC, than Mitt. That's not saying much though. My thoughts with Mitt are closer to a "oh dear God are you ****ing serious" train of thought.

We all know I haven't been much of a fan of Obama and certainly not Biden, but I may fly back to vote.

I tend to think most, if not all elected officials at the top are believers in the PNAC blueprint. I just pray I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
still not hearing those "differences" you crowed a minute ago. The names of the enemy's may be different, maybe the means of warfare slightly different, but policy wise, not much different at all.

I'm not in the mood for a long effort post. Sorry. Chalk it up as a board victory if you like.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 02:54 PM ----------

I do agree with you or at least I really want to. I feel a bit safer with Obama as CiC, than Mitt. That's not saying much though. My thoughts with Mitt are closer to a "oh dear God are you ****ing serious" train of thought.

We all know I haven't been much of a fan of Obama and certainly not Biden, but I may fly back to vote.

I tend to think most, if not all elected officials at the top are believers in the PNAC blueprint. I just pray I'm wrong.

I think that most elected officials are believers in some version of the "Imperial America" blueprint. How you get there, however, and where you choose to intervene - those are huge questions. The PNAC blueprint was a hell of a lot further than anyone should ever have considered going. Both parties are internationalist and can be interventionist, but the fact that both parties keep a military presence in South Korea is not remotely the same as saying that both parties would unilaterally invade Iraq (or Iran).

By the way, I don't think you have to fly back to vote. Send for an absentee ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
If I change my license I can't vote and I'm not sure if I will wait until the election or just say **** it.

Do you really think the Romney/Ryan ticket isn't absurd, but one with Paul is?

I don't care very much about vice presidents, as long as they are not so incompetent that I fear the country would fall off a cliff if they were to ascent to the Oval Office (see Palin, Sarah). Ryan is awful, but at least he could hold down the fort until he got his extremist azz voted out of office.

And yes sadly, as much as I don't like Romney or the policies (he sort of)(currently)(maybe) espouses, I honestly believe that Ron Paul is a flat out nutcase and borderline senile, and do not want him anywhere near the nuclear suitcase. I would not feel the same about any Libertarian (even though I don't agree with their general philosophy I like them better than the current theocratic corporate GOP.)

So I guess the answer has to be yes.

I'm sorry SnyderShrugged - I only said it because I was directly asked. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
I don't care very much about vice presidents, as long as they are not so incompetent that I fear the country would fall off a cliff if they were to ascent to the Oval Office (see Palin, Sarah). Ryan is awful, but at least he could hold down the fort until he got his extremist azz voted out of office.

And yes sadly, as much as I don't like Romney or the policies (he sort of)(currently)(maybe) espouses, I honestly believe that Ron Paul is a flat out nutcase and borderline senile, and do not want him anywhere near the nuclear suitcase. I would not feel the same about any Libertarian (even though I don't agree with their general philosophy I like them better than the current theocratic corporate GOP.)

So I guess the answer has to be yes.

I'm sorry SnyderShrugged - I only said it because I was directly asked. :(

The good Dr. would be the very first in line to protect your right to that opinion and I'd stand right behind him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...