So Is America/Israel/Etc... Going Into Iran?
I'll keep this quick and simple. We have Russia trying to bring forces down from the north (it'll take awhile too), but they are politically engaged which could be dangerous. We have some new information that the U.S. is lining up it's stealth forces in the region (to use or just in case); if we elect a Republican President for the U.S. this November the chances go up.
Here is the article at Wired that talks about us amassing a stealth fleet down there. If Mitt, I assume it will be Mitt, if he takes office we all know the chances of war with Iran go up with him in office; atleast we assume so, because we have only so much information. But, one reality is, is that we are NOT at all bringing down the tensions in any way at all, we are increasing them at every possible turn. So the real question is who do the American people elect; and do they realize it may in fact mean another war is on the war if they vote right. Yet, we do have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in office who is doing his damnedest to keep middle-leaners happy by being very aggressive on this. The bad part is that if he loses the election it can potentially mean that Obama is slightly to blame if there is a war. Because, he will have intentionally made a aggressive situation explosive in the wrong hands and if the reigns change to Mitt's hands it may go in the wrong direction and tip over.
What do you guys think about this situation? One, if a Republican is President will we go to war? Two, will we go to war anyway? I'm going to guess there is no way Obama will go into Iran, because if he does he will damage the Democratic party almost as much as Bush did...
(MODIFIED ENDING-EDIT)
A few good video sources to watch on the topic before posting, also do a general search on the sift of attitudes and other videos members have accumulated about this very specific issue; which is getting more talk and watch time each day here on the sift. You can be guaranteed that sooner or later a decision will be made by either us, Israel, Russia, Iran, or even possibly CHina that will bring this matter to a head--we will see if MAD may play a role in it, I certainly, dearly, hope this will not happen. BUT something WILL happen. But, when...?
Empire analysis of the Iran issue (recent) from @geo321 and is 47 minutes long.
FORA.tv's 2006 history lesson that is also VERY much worth watching, make sure to set some time aside as it's an hour and a half and this is provided by @radx.
2008 -"America's Secret War With Iran", here on Videosift is another, "piece of the puzzle" and shows more of the tension being built and actively pursued by the U.S., thanks to @highdileeho. This is about 25 minutes.
2010 - "CHOSSUDOVSKY:U.S.A will start world war 3 with IRAN" again on Videosift and this just reconfirms what we fear may happen eventually and even scarier is in 2010. First I have a video for 2006, '08, '10, and the news story in 2012 (plus what we know). THIS is a scary, scary ramp up to a way, it seems almost inevetable; someone WILL pull the trigger, but who and what will it do to us all on this little blue/green ball. This is from @enoch. It is ~ 9 minutes.
I don't think I need a 2012 video here, we all know the details and they are getting worse. Russians are getting militarily and politically involved, sending possible massive troops to the Northern Iranian border; they have nearly declared MAD if we take this too far. Israel plays really loosely with the "rules of engagement" (whatever that means) and has possibly infected and disabled the Iranian nuclear program to some degree, along with numerous nuclear scientists being assassinated (or dying, oddly or a little to young from a "heart attack")--we all know that they may actually be the worst at keeping the peace here and we know why: the bomb, or to be more specific: military grade "nuclear fuel" for a sustained nuclear reaction for a nuclear bomb--the one thing that is SO very hard to get. The bomb is really an afterthought, assuming you've got scientists that can carry the one; any physicist worth his salt could design one--hell "I" almost can and I'm NOT one (but, I do KNOW A LOT)! China is China--we don't know why they may get involved, but oil and Russia and America posturing uncomfortably towards each other--especially if MAD is on the table--will get them involved somehow, someway. America is the hardest to answer here except for ONE thing: if Israel goes in and someone decides to respond, WE WILL BE at war! It matters not who is president at that time. As to presidents, the stronger the Republican base pulls Mitt's "Ego personality" right, we have an issue. Because, right now the Republicans WANT a war, at least the ones that count do and that is beyond dangerous. Like Sarah Palin saying she would attack them on day one, and Iran saying they would wipe Israel off the map. Is it the religious punch that does that to these people or just their idiocy?
BTW, atleast by tags, their are 66 Iran videos on the sift and 1000+ (our comments here increase that as well, plus 1000 is the limit of that stat on Videosift's search result count) comments on the Sift about Iran. There is 9 videos containing America and Iran and 236+ (again, here--I'll assume you realize these stats increase the rest of the way) comments on the Sift. There are 32 videos on Iran and War on the Sift and 510 comments. America and War bring up thousands and thousands of posts. I'm guessing some of this is slightly wrong as many "newer" Sift members are NOT good with tags, so that puts a hamper to trying to find trends in topical discussion and video posts on the Sift. Basically, I think our comment and Iran video tagging rates are climbing, and THIS is why I also made this Sift Talk post to ...possibly...bring that up as well.
I'm guessing we may need a "Middle East" or perhaps "Western Asia" or "Persia" channel sooner than later if this really does start. It's just odd sticking Iran and Afghanistan in "Asia", although they are.
(P.S.--Really though why don't we have a "Middle East" channel are we just using the "Islam" channel in that place for now instead?)
Seems like it would have been a decision done long ago already to me, due too the war...)
Anyway, have at it.
Here is the article at Wired that talks about us amassing a stealth fleet down there. If Mitt, I assume it will be Mitt, if he takes office we all know the chances of war with Iran go up with him in office; atleast we assume so, because we have only so much information. But, one reality is, is that we are NOT at all bringing down the tensions in any way at all, we are increasing them at every possible turn. So the real question is who do the American people elect; and do they realize it may in fact mean another war is on the war if they vote right. Yet, we do have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in office who is doing his damnedest to keep middle-leaners happy by being very aggressive on this. The bad part is that if he loses the election it can potentially mean that Obama is slightly to blame if there is a war. Because, he will have intentionally made a aggressive situation explosive in the wrong hands and if the reigns change to Mitt's hands it may go in the wrong direction and tip over.
What do you guys think about this situation? One, if a Republican is President will we go to war? Two, will we go to war anyway? I'm going to guess there is no way Obama will go into Iran, because if he does he will damage the Democratic party almost as much as Bush did...
(MODIFIED ENDING-EDIT)
A few good video sources to watch on the topic before posting, also do a general search on the sift of attitudes and other videos members have accumulated about this very specific issue; which is getting more talk and watch time each day here on the sift. You can be guaranteed that sooner or later a decision will be made by either us, Israel, Russia, Iran, or even possibly CHina that will bring this matter to a head--we will see if MAD may play a role in it, I certainly, dearly, hope this will not happen. BUT something WILL happen. But, when...?
Empire analysis of the Iran issue (recent) from @geo321 and is 47 minutes long.
FORA.tv's 2006 history lesson that is also VERY much worth watching, make sure to set some time aside as it's an hour and a half and this is provided by @radx.
2008 -"America's Secret War With Iran", here on Videosift is another, "piece of the puzzle" and shows more of the tension being built and actively pursued by the U.S., thanks to @highdileeho. This is about 25 minutes.
2010 - "CHOSSUDOVSKY:U.S.A will start world war 3 with IRAN" again on Videosift and this just reconfirms what we fear may happen eventually and even scarier is in 2010. First I have a video for 2006, '08, '10, and the news story in 2012 (plus what we know). THIS is a scary, scary ramp up to a way, it seems almost inevetable; someone WILL pull the trigger, but who and what will it do to us all on this little blue/green ball. This is from @enoch. It is ~ 9 minutes.
I don't think I need a 2012 video here, we all know the details and they are getting worse. Russians are getting militarily and politically involved, sending possible massive troops to the Northern Iranian border; they have nearly declared MAD if we take this too far. Israel plays really loosely with the "rules of engagement" (whatever that means) and has possibly infected and disabled the Iranian nuclear program to some degree, along with numerous nuclear scientists being assassinated (or dying, oddly or a little to young from a "heart attack")--we all know that they may actually be the worst at keeping the peace here and we know why: the bomb, or to be more specific: military grade "nuclear fuel" for a sustained nuclear reaction for a nuclear bomb--the one thing that is SO very hard to get. The bomb is really an afterthought, assuming you've got scientists that can carry the one; any physicist worth his salt could design one--hell "I" almost can and I'm NOT one (but, I do KNOW A LOT)! China is China--we don't know why they may get involved, but oil and Russia and America posturing uncomfortably towards each other--especially if MAD is on the table--will get them involved somehow, someway. America is the hardest to answer here except for ONE thing: if Israel goes in and someone decides to respond, WE WILL BE at war! It matters not who is president at that time. As to presidents, the stronger the Republican base pulls Mitt's "Ego personality" right, we have an issue. Because, right now the Republicans WANT a war, at least the ones that count do and that is beyond dangerous. Like Sarah Palin saying she would attack them on day one, and Iran saying they would wipe Israel off the map. Is it the religious punch that does that to these people or just their idiocy?
BTW, atleast by tags, their are 66 Iran videos on the sift and 1000+ (our comments here increase that as well, plus 1000 is the limit of that stat on Videosift's search result count) comments on the Sift about Iran. There is 9 videos containing America and Iran and 236+ (again, here--I'll assume you realize these stats increase the rest of the way) comments on the Sift. There are 32 videos on Iran and War on the Sift and 510 comments. America and War bring up thousands and thousands of posts. I'm guessing some of this is slightly wrong as many "newer" Sift members are NOT good with tags, so that puts a hamper to trying to find trends in topical discussion and video posts on the Sift. Basically, I think our comment and Iran video tagging rates are climbing, and THIS is why I also made this Sift Talk post to ...possibly...bring that up as well.
I'm guessing we may need a "Middle East" or perhaps "Western Asia" or "Persia" channel sooner than later if this really does start. It's just odd sticking Iran and Afghanistan in "Asia", although they are.
(P.S.--Really though why don't we have a "Middle East" channel are we just using the "Islam" channel in that place for now instead?)
Seems like it would have been a decision done long ago already to me, due too the war...)
Anyway, have at it.
30 Comments
RyjkyjWell, if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.
BoneRemakeI think I will move away from the major city center I am fairly close to. Anyone else who lives in a capitol city might wanna start thinking about doing the same.
jonnyif [Mitt] takes office we all know the chances of war with Iran go up
I don't think that's necessarily true. Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability. Also, just because Romney is a Republican doesn't mean he's anywhere near as crazy or willfully blind to reality as Bush. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'd rather have Romney in office, even just for this particular issue. I'm just saying I don't think as voters we have any real indication what either one of these men will do if, e.g., Israel launched a unilateral attack. Also, it's worth noting that these decisions tend to be made based on large amounts of information that will never be known to any of us.
if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.
What makes you think that? The timely manner in which Guantanamo has been shut down? Or perhaps the timely manner in which we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
What do you guys think about this situation?
I would hope that anyone occupying the White House is aware that any direct attack on Iran by the US will almost certainly lead to a very large regional conflict, and could quite possibly result in a true world war. I'm not trying to be melodramatic or hyperbolic - if the US directly engages Iran militarily, there is no doubt neighboring countries will be brought into the conflict. The big question is would China or Russia or some other significant power dependent on oil from Iran and the rest of the Gulf region decide to get involved to limit the US's influence. It's not hard to imagine China playing at least a covert role in assisting Iran. How would the US react? For that matter, how would India and Pakistan react? Both have nukes and are not exactly on the best of terms with China. The potential consequences of a US invasion of Iran are just too great to risk, for any President.
Also, this (and several other posts) really doesn't belong in the main Sift Talk.
xxovercastxxOn this particular issue there is no difference in action between parties. When Israel cries Democrats and Republicans alike come running to coddle them.
When the Democrats talk about Iran they do a bit more hemming and hawing, yes. The Republicans tend to be more upfront about their desires to bomb countries into oblivion.
When it comes time for action, they are both more than willing to start a war in which we have no business.
critical_dThen what does belong in the main Sift Talk?
>> ^jonny:
if [Mitt] takes office we all know the chances of war with Iran go up
I don't think that's necessarily true. Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability. Also, just because Romney is a Republican doesn't mean he's anywhere near as crazy or willfully blind to reality as Bush. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'd rather have Romney in office, even just for this particular issue. I'm just saying I don't think as voters we have any real indication what either one of these men will do if, e.g., Israel launched a unilateral attack. Also, it's worth noting that these decisions tend to be made based on large amounts of information that will never be known to any of us.
if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.
What makes you think that? The timely manner in which Guantanamo has been shut down? Or perhaps the timely manner in which we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
What do you guys think about this situation?
I would hope that anyone occupying the White House is aware that any direct attack on Iran by the US will almost certainly lead to a very large regional conflict, and could quite possibly result in a true world war. I'm not trying to be melodramatic or hyperbolic - if the US directly engages Iran militarily, there is no doubt neighboring countries will be brought into the conflict. The big question is would China or Russia or some other significant power dependent on oil from Iran and the rest of the Gulf region decide to get involved to limit the US's influence. It's not hard to imagine China playing at least a covert role in assisting Iran. How would the US react? For that matter, how would India and Pakistan react? Both have nukes and are not exactly on the best of terms with China. The potential consequences of a US invasion of Iran are just too great to risk, for any President.
Also, this (and several other posts) really doesn't belong in the main Sift Talk.
gwiz665@critical_d the main sift talk is reserved for things which primarily involve the sift or sifters. At least, that's my understanding.
Ryjkyj>> ^jonny:
if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.
What makes you think that?
It's a joke.
Sarzy>> ^critical_d:
Then what does belong in the main Sift Talk?
http://love.videosift.com/talk/Sift-Talk-Tough-Love
longdeRomney has had a long personal relationship with Netanyahu, while Obama can't stand the guy. Under Romney, the Israeli's would be more likely to attack Iran, drawing us in.
I think that to tilt the elections, the Israelis may unilaterally attack in September.
kceaton1As per the Sift Talk stuff and guidelines, do you want a few video links is that it? A few comments from members on this issue to "pad" what I wanted to make a quick topic? It's up to you how you wish to see the politics played out here on the sift, but from reading the "tough love" article I broke almost nothing sacred to the glorious Sift Talk.
I could leave this to the more regular attendees of the Sift Talk, but this type of talk becomes FAR to vitriolic.
So, I'll say message received, but stay on topic commenting the rest of the way and let's keep this matter closed here.
radxThe very first video I ever submitted to VideoSift was a discussion by Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh primarily about the US posture towards Iran, taped on 10/26/06. It's still available on FORA.tv, and despite everything that happened since then, it's still worth watching.
HybridTo answer the thread title alone: "I hope so".
geo321Empire did a great analysis of this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKz7-jZHv_E
kceaton1I made changes to the Sift Talk to help make it more "on-topic" for the 'Sift-Talk'. I could have done more, but this is what I will settle on for this Talk post. I hope you appreciate that I decided to actively take the demanded advice for what I thought VERY incorrectly was a topical forum with strong multimedia applications.
I was wrong! I learned. I changed and added, so please re-look over some of it; the videos are VERY much worth your time and will help inform you of the whole time table in periods of two years at a time. BTW, if someone can find me a very good 2012 documentary PLEASE post it so I may add it so it can be complete!
I hope you appreciate what I've done and that I went against my own comment, went off-topic (yes, I know that post had a razor's edge to it, but it was supposed to).
Here is to getting back on topic and to satisfying some of the demands required; next time I will aim it much better so that it targets our community yet still asks these hard questions.
It really would be nice to have a general board/forum on the Sift to stop the miscommunication. Sorry to those offended, if you read this anyway, you can now un-ignore me now...
kceaton1*promote -- For friendship and Videosift's great community's soul and sake. I come in peace. If you have something to say, please try to comment on the topic and include the other part at the end or the start.
I'd suggest the end, so people read your point before they decide they disagree with you on the Sift Talk or something similar. It's much more fair to you, to be honest.
--Cross-linkage is gone, my fault.
siftbotSelf promoting this Sift Talk post - promote requested by original submitter kceaton1.
Sarzy>> ^kceaton1:
It really would be nice to have a general board/forum on the Sift to stop the miscommunication. Sorry to those offended, if you read this anyway, you can now un-ignore me now...
There actually is -- the "Newest Channel Talk Posts" section off to the right is where off-topic discussion is generally supposed to take place. However, the "Sift-related discussion only" rule in Sift Talk is generally ignored and I don't think anyone particularly cares, so no need to feel bad about it.
NetRunner>> ^jonny:
Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.
How and when did he show this? The two Obama-initiated armed conflicts I'm aware of are the bin Laden raid and whatever you want to call our involvement with Libya. Both were short, and seemed entirely focused on America's long-term well being.
>> ^jonny:
if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.
What makes you think that? The timely manner in which Guantanamo has been shut down? Or perhaps the timely manner in which we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Again with the "Obama must be evil because he didn't instantly fix all of Bush's quagmires." It's based on the bin Laden raid and Libya. In both of those Obama-initiated efforts, they were completed successfully in timeframes so short you're not sure if you should call them wars, even in hindsight.
All that said, I don't really see Mittens or Obama engaging in some unprovoked war with Iran. I certainly think if Iran detonates a nuclear bomb, or attacks one of the many warships we have parked next door to them that we'll respond with some disproportionate action, but I don't really see either Mitt or Obama ordering some sort of preemptive invasion like Bush did with Iraq.
Maybe later events will change my mind on that, but I don't sense any real appetite for war with Iran from anyone on either side of the political divide right now, except the usual stopped clocks who want to go to war with everyone all the time (McCain, Lieberman, etc.).
America's greatest foreign policy focus right now should be Europe's economic situation, not the middle east, or even southeast Asia.
notarobotCan the US really afford another war? Methinks China would be wary of interference with her oil supply.
see: http://videosift.com/video/Robert-Newmans-History-of-Oil
marinarathe only thing keeping us from war in Iran is the sanity of our military leaders.
if you look at what the military brass is saying, the big brass really doesn't want war with Iran. Of course there are exceptions, so before there is war, the responsible people have to be removed.
geo321...
jonnyjonny: Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war
NetRunner: How and when did he show this?
40000+ troops sent to Afghanistan despite campaign promises to do exactly the opposite. And for what? Do you honestly believe the long term security of either the US or Afghanistan was improved as a result?
Honestly, NetRunner, you've recently been demonstrating the kind of tribalism in politics that has so many people sick of the whole process. I understand it's an election year and there are a lot of things at stake (none bigger than the likely 2 SCOTUS nominations to replace Ginsberg and Breyer). But to mischaracterize my words in that way (especially when I made it pretty clear I had no preference for Romney even on this very limited issue) is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a hack political operative. I think, no... I know you are better than that. It's not us and them. There is no them.
NetRunner>> ^jonny:
jonny: Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war
NetRunner: How and when did he show this?
40000+ troops sent to Afghanistan despite campaign promises to do exactly the opposite. And for what? Do you honestly believe the long term security of either the US or Afghanistan was improved as a result?
I'm not particularly happy about him ramping up troop levels in Afghanistan, and I'm no optimist about Afghanistan in general, but I don't think it was some sort of obviously boneheaded or bloodthirsty decision, either.
Here's your original quote in full:
This in response to the question of "are we about to invade Iran?" with the clear implication being that you think Obama is prone to get America involved in pointless wars without any real consideration of either the short term or long term impact to the country.
The relevant Obama bumper-stickers on foreign policy from the 2008 campaign were "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars," and "I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
I think his record shows that he's held true to both of those, and overall has wielded American power quite judiciously these last 3.5 years. I'm a big pessimist on Afghanistan, but I can't really blame Obama for trying to do something to wind down our involvement there in a way that doesn't leave the situation in Afghanistan much worse for both the Afghans and us. I don't think that's possible, but I can't blame him for not sharing in my fatalism.
>> ^jonny:
Honestly, NetRunner, you've recently been demonstrating the kind of tribalism in politics that has so many people sick of the whole process. I understand it's an election year and there are a lot of things at stake (none bigger than the likely 2 SCOTUS nominations to replace Ginsberg and Breyer). But to mischaracterize my words in that way (especially when I made it pretty clear I had no preference for Romney even on this very limited issue) is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a hack political operative. I think, no... I know you are better than that. It's not us and them. There is no them.
And here's where you've really gone off the rails. I'm some political hack engaging in mindless tribalism and mischaracterizing the words of others....because I asked you to provide examples of what Obama has specifically done to make you think he'd attack Iran without cause?
My comments after "All that said," were just my general take on the whole question of war with Iran. Even rereading it now, I find it hard to see how you got the impression I was accusing you of being a Romney supporter.
What little judgment I was passing on you was that I felt you were leveling baseless accusations against Obama, and all I was really doing was asking you to try to back it up with facts.
But years of arguing with blankfist should've taught me, asking people for evidence to support their argument is a dirty partisan trick only practiced by political hacks like me...
direpickle@jonny: I actually don't remember any promises to end the war in Afghanistan. Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.
jonny>> ^NetRunner: And here's where you've really gone off the rails. I'm some political hack engaging in mindless tribalism and mischaracterizing the words of others....because I asked you to provide examples of what Obama has specifically done to make you think he'd attack Iran without cause?
I did not claim that you are a political hack. In fact, I explicitly stated that I hold you in much higher regard than that (emphasis added):
You mischaracterized my words then (I never once mentioned bin Laden or Libya, nor did I write anything close to suggesting Obama is evil):
and now you have done it again (the hack statement), and again:
My words implied nothing of the sort. This is your own extrapolation.
What little judgment I was passing on you was that I felt you were leveling baseless accusations against Obama, and all I was really doing was asking you to try to back it up with facts.
I provided facts, and your response was to mischaracterize my words. How should I have responded? How would you?
jonnyThat is basically in agreement with my original point:
The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.
NetRunner>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point: The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.
Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.
jonnyI spelled it out as clearly as I can three comments up, with three very specific examples. I'm not sure how else I can word it.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point: The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.
Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.
jonnyit = engage in war (when it should be clear that doing so will do little or nothing to improve the long term security of the US (and may in fact degrade that security)).
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point: The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.
Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.
jonny@NetRunner Would you have given LBJ a pass on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Is the escalation of war/violence somehow different now than it was then?
I've explained my position about as clearly as I can. I'm asking you to do the same. You claim that 1) invading Iran would be "without cause", and 2) that Obama would not do so despite his willingness to continue another war which he didn't initiate. Please provide evidence or reasoning to suggest that either of those statements could be true.
>> ^NetRunner:
I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.