The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Solecismic]

Hezbollah is just another agent of Iran. Whether it would be directly involved in implementing nuclear weaponry is immaterial. They do what they're trained to do.

A declared war is not a word game. The question is how to react. You're right that bombing the military sites has limited benefit.

Which, for better or worse, means no deal is possible. What is your alternative plan?

Then no deal is possible, since Iran won't recognize Israel's right to exist. And no deal is better than removing sanctions.

At some point, through sanctions and defense, Iran may realize that its quest to eliminate Israel isn't worth the cost.

But through appeasement, they've learned a different behavior - as they're exhibiting today. Hence the increased activity in the Golan Heights, the increased rhetoric, and the new military agreements with Russia.

[JPhillips]

The Russians and Chinese all but stated that they would drop sanctions if there was no deal. Most assume that Germany, France, and UK would do the same fairly quickly. At that point our sanctions don't mean much of anything and we're back to the state of things during the Bush years, and your options are bluffing through tough talk or war.

If you have some plan to keep sanctions in place after failed peace talks, how would that work?

[JAG]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm no fan of Iran or its leaders, but if the goal is to reduce the likelihood of a nuke, the choices are diplomacy or war. The sanctions aren't going to hold forever and were only agreed to internationally as a way to force an agreement. In that sense, they worked, but without an agreement U.S. sanctions and tough talk won't do much of anything (see 2000-2008). Actual arms control experts say the deal is solid and provides a good inspections regime. I'm willing to trust them, especially given the other real world alternative.

I think you're forgetting that we've actually done more than what you laid out. Let's not forget the US and Israel tried cyberwarfare to increase the time needed for Iran to build a bomb (which succeeded for a time), along with (supposed) Israeli assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. I think it's arguable that outside of open warfare, options even beyond what would be considered reasonable and legal have been attempted to prevent or slow down Iranian efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon. And none of it has appeared to have lasting success.

I don't think the deal we signed is ideal. It's disappointing Iran won't be forced to recognize Israel. It's disappointing they will receive funds from their frozen assets to support terrorism along with additional funds from the removal of sanctions (though that last part was arguably happening anyway). I think we got the best deal we could have though and the deal accomplishes something despite the howling from the detractors. Aside from the specifics in the deal related to reduced centrifuges / material and inspections, it also provides support for what happens if they try to go outside the framework of the deal. If we catch them cheating in any way, it will be a lot easier to muster public support behind action that I would assume most Americans would prefer to avoid if possible but are resigned to do if it's the last resort.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Russians and Chinese all but stated that they would drop sanctions if there was no deal. Most assume that Germany, France, and UK would do the same fairly quickly. At that point our sanctions don't mean much of anything and we're back to the state of things during the Bush years, and your options are bluffing through tough talk or war.

If you have some plan to keep sanctions in place after failed peace talks, how would that work?

That's more indicative of the loss of respect Obama brings to the international table.

We don't deal with terrorists. Obama has, and the message of appeasement has consequences throughout the world.

What you do is help your friends. Which happened in the past with the virus that took down Iran's labs. Which happened in the past when the US reliably blocked the crap that comes out of the UN on a daily basis.

The world sees how Obama treats his friends and tries to appease his enemies and the world reacts.

We need a new president. I'm not sure we have one in any of the 21 current candidates, but this deal isn't worth the cyberspace they used to store it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We don't deal with terrorists.

History would say otherwise. This isn't even the first time we've dealt with Iran.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We don't deal with terrorists. Obama has,

i get your legitimate concerns and criticism, but common on... Iran Contra

[Dutch]

meh, the Contra's were fighting a repressive socialist government in the Cold War. Not exactly what I would call your modern extremist terrorist group. Unless, you root for socialism, of course.

[Solecismic]

I'm sure there are technicalities, some we'd be uncomfortable with. But this is a government that is rather open about its goals through terrorism, open about sponsorship and training and also open about its feelings toward us, should it ever gain enough power. This is several orders of magnitude greater than shadowy stuff that may or may not be effective.

There are few truly bad actors in the world. Iran is one of them.

[JPhillips]

Mujaheddin
Taliban
Syria
Saddam Hussein
Palestinians
Iran
Saudi royal family
Muslim brotherhood

And that's just off the top of my head. When we think it will advance our interests we're more than willing to deal with terrorists.

[Solecismic]

We have negotiated treaties (excuse me, non-treaties) with all those groups? Interesting. I thought we just sent arms or other support when there was a political goal.

This is orders of magnitude different. If Obama doesn't see the difference, it's just more evidence he has no idea what he's doing.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We have negotiated treaties (excuse me, non-treaties) with all those groups? Interesting. I thought we just sent arms or other support when there was a political goal.

This is orders of magnitude different. If Obama doesn't see the difference, it's just more evidence he has no idea what he's doing.

You are moving the goal posts. Despite what the words in the treaty said, you say there were secret deals. Despite what was being said by the authors, you said it was all lies and spin. Despite saying us doesn't deal with terrorist, you now say us doesn't negotiate treaties.

I feel your argue,went would have been more persuasive if you just said, "my guts tells me this is a bad and dangerous deal."

[Solecismic]

Deal as in make a deal with a standing government.

Many people have referred to the secret side-deals with this non-treaty treaty. Including the leadership of one of the countries involved (they just released another movie trailer of bombing American ships, in case people don't know who Obama is dealing with here). Obama himself has acknowledged that the deal does not cover what he initially promised.

My guts don't say anything. Iranian leadership is very clear about what it wants, and what it will do with all the money Obama just freed up for them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

(they just released another movie trailer of bombing American ships, in case people don't know who Obama is dealing with here).

Are you talking about the Chinese video?

[Solecismic]

No. An official one from Iran's leadership.

If any war happens... - YouTube

This is who they are.

[JPhillips]

So we're back to where we started. If negotiations are out, what outside of war will slow or stop the Iranian nuclear program? What's your alternative?

[Solecismic]

Rather than repeating the same sequence again, just go back a page or so. Probably time to stop. Obama certainly has demonstrated what not to do in the Middle East.

Six months ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqIMF-eOL1U

Too bad they didn't listen to their own advice.

[PilotMan]

So it's your opinion that if we could go back to 2008 and get a do over, that the choices made by McCain would have significantly altered our course?

If that's true, what course of action would he have undertaken?

I've thought about it, and it all comes back to a repeat of Iraq. All on our own. Or quite possibly letting the Israelis loose to conduct airstrikes against Iran.

Looking back at that time, imagine putting the strain of another conflict on the economy heading into the great recession. The Israel concept is interesting, since it was pulled off once before, but I have a feeling that the end results would have been much different. I don't see the international community giving Israel that much leeway anymore. Feelings toward much of their actions have hurt them over the years.

It's just too simple to say that Obama screwed it all up and that any other choice would have been the correct one. The other choices available don't make the US any safer than the path that we've gone down now.

I don't think anyone is out there touting the stability and friendliness of Pakistan. They went nuclear 17 years ago and caught the world by surprise. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has certainly slowed down in the late 20th and 21st centuries, but I think we are at the point globally where if a country has that as a goal, they are going to achieve it, given enough time.

[Solecismic]

All Obama has done is take the military option off of the table and give Iran access to $150 billion.

That seems worse than any other action anyone could have taken.

Go back to 2003, not 2008. Congress should have asked Bush what his end-game was with this Iraq nonsense. That destabilized the region and gave Iran a lot of power. Then Obama enacted the appeasement policy, which led to more destabilization and the power vacuum in Iraq. So now we have two major and very different sources of terror - neither of which is all that related to Al Qaeda.

Israel is powerless to stop that. Israel is too small and too many countries deny it has a right to exist. They don't want to bomb Iran any more than we do. The best they can do is try and handle the non-nuclear stuff from Iran's proxies on their borders.

Maybe all of this doesn't matter. Maybe the pressures of overpopulation mean war is constant and nuclear war is inevitable. But you don't make it easier without getting anything in return.

[JPhillips]

You're great at saying Obama did everything wrong, but you still haven't proposed a viable alternative other than tough talk or war. The idea that we should wait for the perfect agreement isn't living in the real world. There's no negotiating possible under your conditions, so what would you do?

[Solecismic]

I don't want to keep repeating myself, because I've answered that question. But no deal is better than a bad deal - Hillary and Kerry got that much right... until they didn't.

[JPhillips]

Yes, I get that. What I want to know is what to do after no deal. How would you stop the Iranians from developing a nuke? If you won't negotiate, or have conditions that will keep the Iranians from negotiating, what do you do?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, I get that. What I want to know is what to do after no deal. How would you stop the Iranians from developing a nuke? If you won't negotiate, or have conditions that will keep the Iranians from negotiating, what do you do?

Sucks to say it, but somebody has to be prepared to have a conventional war with them.

Bottom line:

Iran wants to be the first Islamic nation to detonate a nuke in Tel Aviv to secure their place in history.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sucks to say it, but somebody has to be prepared to have a conventional war with them.

Bottom line:

Iran wants to be the first Islamic nation to detonate a nuke in Tel Aviv to secure their place in history.

While I obviously think that's a poor choice, I at least respect you owning that. It seems to me you have three basic choices, negotiate, talk tough but do little, or use the military. What's frustrating is the position that if we were just tough enough the Iranians would agree to all our wishes. I just don't see how that could happen in the real world.

[Solecismic]

I don't agree with your choices or your characterization of my choices.

Obviously, we're very limited right now by Bush's cowboy behavior and Obama's wishy-washy appeasement. No one trusts us, and building consensus for action would be difficult.

I think the key is in intelligence, and yes, Iran has to believe that if they make moves, we'll know about them and move before they can do damage. But you can't be omniscient. Neither can you start a ground war without risking a lot more because Russia's in there and China's too close not to care. It wouldn't be nearly as easy as Iraq was.

But first, you don't make a deal. Now a hard situation is much, much harder because we've taken so many options off the table.

I think we have to start thinking about what it would take to remove Hezbollah and Hamas from the equation. Iran is a sovereign nation, but Hezbollah and Hamas are just terrorist groups Iran controls. We also have to think twice about any action involving ISIS because Russia and Iran are opposed to ISIS.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

They don't want to bomb Iran any more than we do.

I don't see much difference in the rhetoric of Netanyahu and Iran. I think the legitimate inability to empathize with the enemy (as macamera put it) prevents many (perhaps you) to see this as just good vs evil.

[Solecismic]

Huh, what? Do you really think Netanyahu wants to hurt anyone in Tehran? This seems the height of false equivalencies.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't agree with your choices or your characterization of my choices.

Obviously, we're very limited right now by Bush's cowboy behavior and Obama's wishy-washy appeasement. No one trusts us, and building consensus for action would be difficult.

I think the key is in intelligence, and yes, Iran has to believe that if they make moves, we'll know about them and move before they can do damage. But you can't be omniscient. Neither can you start a ground war without risking a lot more because Russia's in there and China's too close not to care. It wouldn't be nearly as easy as Iraq was.

But first, you don't make a deal. Now a hard situation is much, much harder because we've taken so many options off the table.

I think we have to start thinking about what it would take to remove Hezbollah and Hamas from the equation. Iran is a sovereign nation, but Hezbollah and Hamas are just terrorist groups Iran controls. We also have to think twice about any action involving ISIS because Russia and Iran are opposed to ISIS.

None of that would keep Iran from developing nukes. If you are mostly worried about Iran's influence as a regional power these ideas might work. But if you're mostly concerned about Iran getting a nuke, they'd still be free to do so.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Huh, what? Do you really think Netanyahu wants to hurt anyone in Tehran? This seems the height of false equivalencies.

Because military strikes are always limited to specific targets and never have collateral damage, either in terms of infrastructure or human lives.

[Solecismic]

I'm not following you, Sack. Are you saying that Netanyahu, because Israel uses force to defend itself from rocket attacks, must feel that he wants to kill every man, woman and child in Iran?

Because the promise from Iran, combined with their unprovoked attacks and military buildup in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, seems fairly clear.

I don't know how you stop Iran from getting the bomb at this point. The money will bring them closer, as will the new weaponry from Russia that Obama has allowed. Bombing raids might delay it, but at a cost. Sabotage is a possibility. Trusting them to wait ten years when they say inspections are forbidden seems like a bad idea.

[Dutch]

Liberals and staunch ultra-right wing Iranians are such bizarre bed-fellows.

[Edward64]

Another one for the history books on legacy.

I think Obama has just lost Dems the military vote for the foreseeable future (or I guess it doesn't matter as the military go GOP anyway). It'll be interesting to see how the GOP candidates react to this and gays in the military.

Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army - CNNPolitics.com

)President Barack Obama on Friday nominated Eric K. Fanning to be secretary of the Army, which could make him the first openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch.

The U.S. Senate must confirm Fanning before he can lead the Army.

"Eric brings many years of proven experience and exceptional leadership to this new role," the President said in a statement. "I am grateful for his commitment to our men and women in uniform, and I am confident he will help lead America's Soldiers with distinction."

This historic move is one of many steps the Obama administration has taken to advance the rights of the LGBT community in the armed forces. In 2010, the President signed a law ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, and earlier this year, the President moved to allow those who identify as transgender to openly serve as well.

[bhlloy]

I think you answered your own question there - anyone in the military who is offended enough by this to never vote Democrat again wasn't voting Democrat in the first place.

I also seem to recall the surveys they did when they were planning DADT showed most armed forces members were either in favor or didn't care, so I'm guessing the effect isn't as overwhelming as you think.

[Edward64]

There does seem to be a significant shift in attitude under Obama's shift.

AMERICA'S MILITARY: A conservative institution's uneasy cultural evolution

The greatest cultural shift under Obama may well be the swiftly-growing acceptance of homosexuality in the ranks following the official change in law that took effect in September 2011.

A Military Times poll in 2009 found 35 percent of troops felt that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in uniform. Five years later, that figure has jumped to 60 percent.

Similarly, open opposition to homosexuality in the military has collapsed. In 2009, 49 percent of troops felt gays, lesbians and bisexuals should not be allowed to serve. In 2014, such disapproval fell to just 19 percent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There does seem to be a significant shift in attitude under Obama's shift.

{shrug} Part of the decline of the U.S. military that's been going on for years. Various policy decisions have been driving good soldiers out for going on three decades that I can think of. That the military would reflect that overall decline in society isn't really much of a surprise, they don't exist entirely in a vacuum.

[Thomkal]

The pope is coming to the US. Interestingly the President has invited gay rights and abortion activists to the event in Washington. Huckabee doesn't like it I guess:

Huckabee rips Obama as 'most anti-Christian' president ever | TheHill

[Edward64]

It looks as if Russia wants to get more involved to prop up Assad and to fight ISIS.

I'm actually okay with this since it doesn't seem that we want to get more involved and our policies/strategy so far has been non-effective and/or disastrous. Let's give someone else a shot at it.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/middle...dup/index.html

Russia may be preparing to station troops at two new sites in Syria as it continues its rapid military buildup in the conflict-ravaged nation, a research firm says.

IHS Jane's said Tuesday that it had spotted two previously unreported sites in satellite imagery of western Syria where steps appear to be being taken to receive Russian forces.

[bhlloy]

I tend to agree, and I wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes and the public condemnation we are quite happy with this, as horrible as it might be for the Syrian people. I just can't see a moderate solution to Syria no matter how hard we look.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It looks as if Russia wants to get more involved to prop up Assad and to fight ISIS.

I'm actually okay with this since it doesn't seem that we want to get more involved and our policies/strategy so far has been non-effective and/or disastrous. Let's give someone else a shot at it.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/middle...dup/index.html

Since it is in their backyard, relatively speaking, I'm more than okay with Russia stepping up to combat ISIS.

[Thomkal]

American terrorists ready to act on Iran nuclear deal?

Activist Vows to Arrest Democratic Lawmaker ‘Under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution’ | TheBlaze.com

[cartman]

Boehner is leaving Congress at the end of October.

Boehner to resign in October | TheHill

[JPhillips]

Holy crap. That's huge. The fight for his successor is going to be ugly.

I wonder if this was the price for getting the budget passed on time.

[Coffee Warlord]

If the Republicans oust him and put a far right no-deals social conservative in his place, they may as well just kiss their House majority goodbye in 2016.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

If the Republicans oust him and put a far right no-deals social conservative in his place, they may as well just kiss their House majority goodbye in 2016.

I don't know. Very few GOP districts have swing possibility. Most of them are so safe that a conservative primary opponent is a bigger worry than a moderate general election opponent.

edit: But it certainly won't help the Presidential or Senate elections.

edit2: Since Cruz seems to be pulling the strings for the far right House members, why not make him the Speaker. The Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House after all.

[QuikSand]

Boehner had decided a few weeks back that he was not going to re-run for his Congressional seat. I think this current budget fight, the continuing intra-party discontent, and quite honestly the personal load of visibility all conspired to move him to just parachute more or less immediately.

[ISiddiqui]

It kind of makes me a bit sad, because I always felt that Boehner never felt all this shutdown and debt ceiling stuff was worth fighting about, but the right wingers in the House kept pushing him to do it and kept making noises about replacing him if he didn't.

Had to be exhausting.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It kind of makes me a bit sad, because I always felt that Boehner never felt all this shutdown and debt ceiling stuff was worth fighting about, but the right wingers in the House kept pushing him to do it and kept making noises about replacing him if he didn't.

Had to be exhausting.

Yeah. Nobody can blame him for throwing up his hands and saying, "Fuck these guys."

[ISiddiqui]

Apparently Boehner wanted to step down as Speaker last year, but Cantor's primary loss deep sixed that idea:

House Speaker John Boehner to resign at end of October - The Washington Post

Deep into year four of his tenure, Boehner privately decided to step down but his likely successor — then-House Majority Leader Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) — lost a stunning upset in his GOP primary, according to aides.

Without a senior Republican to take the gavel, Boehner stayed on in the hopes of steadying the ship and possibly helping elect a Republican president. That path became untenable this month as the conservative rebels plotted to force votes against Boehner, which would have meant that his Republicans would have to keep taking votes putting them in a political bind with conservative voters back home.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It kind of makes me a bit sad, because I always felt that Boehner never felt all this shutdown and debt ceiling stuff was worth fighting about, but the right wingers in the House kept pushing him to do it and kept making noises about replacing him if he didn't.

Had to be exhausting.

Agreed. I've always seen him as a really good guy who was playing the role, but really didn't want to do so.

[Thomkal]

thank god, not that whomever replaces him will be able to change anything...

[Kodos]

I hope the Republicans will be able to perform effectively without a Boehner.