GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’” - Barack Obama
Iran doesn’t pose a serious threat! It’s just a little nation like Cuba! No threat here! Nothing to see, folks; move it along.
Chills, people. Chills down my spine. I just can’t believe he’d say such a thing.
We can’t afford this fool as Commander-in-Chief.
(PS: McCain-Lieberman would crush him.)
(PPS: Could Hillary still pull this off, given Obama’s penchant for saying idiotic things such as this? You can bet your ass Hillary would never say that Iran isn’t a serious threat.)
May 19th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Maybe schools are not teaching english anymore, but saying Iran is not a serious threat like the Soviet Union was is not the same as saying its not a serious threat. Is this not the same type of distortion people complained was happening with McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” comment?
Its silly and really not worth reading so I guess I will look elsewhere for political discourse.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Um. If it obtains a nuke, it’s up there.
And he also compared the threat from Iran to…Cuba?
What a blowhard.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Also — because it doesn’t compare to the Soviet Union, we should downplay it?
Think, PabloZed, think!
Carry this to its logical conclusion..!
May 19th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
The point is that he is DOWNPLAYING IT..!
May 19th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When did Obama or anyone for that matter downplay Iran?
He just put it in historical perspective.
Reagan talked with the Soviet Union.
Eisenhower negotiated the end of a conflict with N. Korea.
Nixon went to China and got an Opera written for it.
Republican’s all.
There have always been nations in the world at odds with each other.
Sometimes they go to war and talk later. Sometimes they talk it out first.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
When did he downplay Iran?
Did you read the quote..?
Yeah, good luck “talking it out” with Ahmadinejad.
Obama may be the Messiah, but Allah’s word is probably going to take precedent for a nut like Ahmadinejad.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I like this.
That’s right Barry. Go back home to Illinois and play on your teeter totter for a while. Pay your dues in the US Senate. Then maybe in four or eight years when you grow up a little and learn how to stop whining maybe you can run for president.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
And Obama is wrong. Iran is MORE of a threat than the USSR. I’m not worried about the country with thousands of nukes who knows full well that we have thousands of nukes. I’m worried about the guy with one nuke who is ready to pay his dues to Allah to meet his 72 virgins. And ol’ Mahmoud We don’t have any gays here Ahmadinejad strikes me as just the type of irrational unstable zealot that would be only too happy to give that one nuke to an ambitious uneducated kid ready to do his bidding if he felt like he had something to prove.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Ok, this quote requires an education in history & english, which by the looks of things is a bit beyond some posters on this site.
If you were to ask the average educated person who knows history what the biggest crisis was in recent US history, they would probably say the Cuban missile crisis. With the USSR.
Why? Because USSR was a powerful nuclear foe who threatened the existance of the USA. Millions could have died.
So, for Obama to say that “Iran is not as threatening as USSR was” is actually quite true.
Its kind of sad that people who claim they care more about the issues are prepared to resort to this fear-mongering which is so easily deflected. Surely there are enough issues to attack Obama on without resorting to crude inaccurate attempts at fuelling fear?
May 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Well put JayPe. It is amazing and somewhat sad that some people think that if a presidential candidate doesn’t engaged in hyperbolic fear/war-mongering, then he wouldn’t be strong on defense.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
JayPe,
Setting aside Iran for a minute - even the rest of the quote says that Obama is an asshat that doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.
Quoth Barry,
Really? We decided to be nice to Gorby and his comrades just because we wanted to sing kumbaya? What a fucking idiot! Does he even know what the hell is talking about? Last time I checked Reagan was siting Pershing missiles in Eastern Europe in the 1980’s. And he wouldn’t back down from SDI. In fact Reagan was negotiating from a position of STRENGTH. He knew Gorbachev couldn’t cough up the cash to compete in an arms race. He called the Commies’ bluff. Does Obama even KNOW that? Or is he deliberately mischaracterizing what went down? Maybe Chris Matthews ought to set him down and grill him on the subject if he could just get rid of his hard-on for five minutes.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Adam, your rant doesn’t make sense. Calm down, you are way out of balance here, and assuming the absolute worst out of a pretty simple, true statement.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
PabloZed and others:
Here is where you are FLAT WRONG.
Mutually assured destruction with the Soviet Union was a deterrence. Based on the belief of Iran leadership that the Shi’ite 12th Imam will come upon armageddon (if we are to take that belief seriously), in Iran’s eyes, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrence but rather an INCENTIVE.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
PabloZed and others:
Here is where you are FLAT WRONG.
Mutually assured destruction with the Soviet Union was a deterrence. Based on the belief of Iran leadership that the Shi’ite 12th Imam will come upon armageddon (if we are to take that belief seriously), in Iran’s eyes, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrence but rather an INCENTIVE.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Where am I going wrong, Steve?
May 19th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Oh, and for you too JayPe:
Mutually assured destruction with the Soviet Union was a deterrence. Based on the belief of Iran leadership that the Shi’ite 12th Imam will come upon armageddon (if we are to take that belief seriously), in Iran’s eyes, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrence but rather an INCENTIVE.
I HATE RINOs!!!
May 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
SteveS you can go the hell away too. Read my posts.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Adam, feel free to calm down. Swearing does nothing but make people think you’ve lost control. Hardly a good position to have a rational discussion.
You seem to equate “talking with someone” (Obama’s position) with “being nice to someone”. This of course is quite untrue. Obama can sit down with the Iranian President and tell him that if he gets a nuclear missile then Obama will obliterate him. Is that nice? No, but it is talking with him.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
AND…PABLOZED, JAYPE, AND OTHERS.
Don’t you dare question others’ understanding of the English language when you are ignorant on the issue itself. Get that.
People like you really piss me off.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
UPDATE
McCain: “Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess…The threat the government of Iran poses is anything but tiny.”
Responding to McCain, Obama told an audience in Billings, Montana, “Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat.” But the Soviet Union posed an added threat, he said. “The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one.”
Barack Obama, you’re one f*cking dangerous moron…How many nukes do you think the Iranians need to wipe tiny Israel off the map? And, are you suggesting that you’d wait until they already possessed a nuclear weapon before considering a response?
The condescending clinging to guns and religion comment, the lecture about the need to stop eating, driving and being comfortable in your home, then having the audacity to say any critique of Michelle’s comments is off limits, and now, with his blasé attitude about the threat Iran poses, it’s almost as if he’s trying to lose the Jewish vote…or perhaps he’s fearful of Huckabee’s ‘botched joke’ coming to fruition and is, step by step, subconsciously sabotaging his shot at electoral victory as the possibility becomes increasingly real.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Poor sjd, he doesn’t want to talk to people who don’t agree with him.
At least you’re consistent. You don’t want to talk to people like me, and you don’t want Obama to talk to Iran.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
JayPe:
Attacking others’ understanding of the English language does nothing to advance rational discussion. You are the culprit of irrational discussion, so shut the hell up and get off your high horse. If you start with a personal attack, we’re not going to stand for it.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
sjd, I said that this quote required a knowledge of english and history. Which is true.
I also said that that looked to be beyond some people on this site. Maybe I shouldn’t have said that. So I’m quite happy to retract that comment. However, it is true that the way some people are interpreting Baracks quote is ignoring both history and basic rules of the english language (he used a comparative, and people are rendering it as an absolute)
May 19th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
JayPe:
I’ll talk to people like you, and laugh at you as I openly show you your own ignorance on English AND History.
And your one-liners are cheesy and smarmy. Lose them.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I’m in rare form today. I’ve been annoyed at Obama all day from his “directive” that the GOP can’t say anything about his wife after she CHOSE to involve herself in the campaign and open her mouth. When you put yourself in the political realm you open yourself up to criticism.
Anyway - I’ll make a good faith effort to knock off the swearing.
Why does Obama need to meet with Ahmedinajad to tell him that? Even that is foolish. It simply elevates the Iranian leader. Why bestow that upon him? All Obama would have to do is make a speech from Washington if all he wants to say is that he’ll obliterate him if he gets a nuclear missile. I don’t see anything to gain from meeting with Mamoud without preconditions. And in fact that’s exactly what Obama said he would do. Even smarter Democrats like Biden and Hart had to distance themselves from that.
And I sincerely have my doubts that Obama has what it takes to defend the country. I really genuinely wonder if Obama would have taken action in Afghanistan had he been president on 9/11.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Mutually assured destruction with the Soviet Union was a deterrence. Based on the belief of Iran leadership that the Shi’ite 12th Imam will come upon armageddon (if we are to take that belief seriously), in Iran’s eyes, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrence but rather an INCENTIVE.
YES. Exactly!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Haha - Aron. I’m glad I’m not the only one seething over Barry today!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
JayPe:
I just explained to you how EVEN THE COMPARATIVE is foolish. Iran is a GREATER threat than the USSR, not a lesser threat. I already explained that.
And…your retraction smacks of disingenuity. It’s like sports celebrities who only apologizes when ESPN forces them to. You are an ass, and you, sir, in fact, have less understanding of English and History than most people on this site. So do us all a favor and go the hell away.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I also said that that looked to be beyond some people on this site. Maybe I shouldn’t have said that. So I’m quite happy to retract that comment
No need.
My rhetoric is heated, too, and I wouldn’t say anything I wasn’t willing to defend.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
The truth here is irrelevant to the election.
The real question is: Will voters care?
Most of Obama’s voters are too young to remember the scary pre-detente USSR.
Obama’s rhetoric may set off right wingers. Few moderates will find anything disturbing about Obama’s comment. After the Republican record of hyping the threat of Iraq we aren’t going to be taken serious when we say Iran is a grave threat.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
JayPe Says (with Obama-like arrogance and condescention):
“However, it is true that the way some people are interpreting Baracks quote is ignoring both history and basic rules of the english language (he used a comparative, and people are rendering it as an absolute)”
I say to JayPe:
I just explained to you how EVEN THE COMPARATIVE is foolish. Iran is a GREATER threat than the USSR, not a lesser threat. I already explained that.
And…your retraction smacks of disingenuity. It’s like sports celebrities who only apologize when ESPN forces them to. You are an ass, and you, sir, in fact, have less understanding of English and History than most people on this site. So do us all a favor and go the hell away.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
sjd, you crack me up!
I’ve read your point about incentive vs deterant, to “prove” that Iran is a bigger threat than the USSR was. But I hardly think that Iran is in a position to point nuclear missiles at the USA as the USSR did. So USSR certainly was the greater threat.
That’s not to say that Iran will not be able to do that in the future, and I’m sure if they could they would, and will try to. But they can’t now. And meeting with them won’t change it or make it more likely that they will.
Be honest, what did you think when Reagan met with the USSR President in the 80’s? Did you think it was appeasement? Did you think he was legitimising the Soviet leader? Or was it negotiating with the enemy - a perfectly acceptable strategy.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Assuming this site is a good representation of the GOP, and the GOP is a big tent which discusses the issues, even when there is internal disagreement, then I shouldn’t go away.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Iran doesn’t need to POINT a nuclear missile at the USA. Iran merely needs to hand off some nukes to terrorists and smuggle them into the US and set them off.
JayPe…you are an ignoramus. Go away.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Ah, the “big tent” argument.
You are not “internal agreement.” You are Obama-esqe. The GOP needs more conservatives, not more liberal republicans. GO AWAY.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
sjd, can I just clarify who you are? Are you another name for Kavon perhaps?
You seem to be taking on a lot of authority all of a sudden…
May 19th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
What I know about Iran suggests the threat of nuclear terrorism is very low. Iran keeps its security tight. It has a vast spy network.
The Imams are in charge not a mere Iranian President. The Imams like their Rolls Royce and palatial estates. They’re not going to allow nuclear weapons to be used against the US. The main reason is that nuclear weapons are traceable.
We’ve got to realize Ahmadinejad is the clerics’ sop to a anti-Semitic and disgruntled youth. Ahmadinejad’s platform was mostly economic.
The threat from Iran is nuclear blackmail and then a nuclear Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey…
May 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
And why does the GOP not need “liberal republicans”? Depending on the definition, GOPers like Goldwater (gay & abortion rights), Rudy and Reagan (dared to negotiate with the USSR) would all be thrown out.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I don’t visit this site often, but I get very angry when I visit this so-called conservative site and see people defend Obama on his ignorance and spout pro-abortion arguments (which I dealt with in the past).
While I’m at it, I’d like to address Chris Matthews. People are, for some reason, lauding his interview with Kevin James. IT WAS A NON-SEQUITUR. I don’t give a shit if Neville Chamberlain held on to all of Czechoslovakia, HITLER STILL WOULD HAVE SLAUGHTERED THE JEWS.
HITLER DID NOT SOMEHOW NEED CZECHOSLOVAKIA TO KILL THE JEWS. HE COULD HAVE KILLED THE JEWS WITHOUT HALF OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA. AND HE WOULD HAVE.
SO EVEN IF NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN DID NOT “GIVE AWAY” HALF OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA, HITLER WOULD HAVE STILL SLAUGHTERED THE JEWS ANYWAY.
Chris Matthews uses a non-sequitur and people can’t call him on it!!!!!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Didn’t Reagan once sell arms to Iran? That wasn’t very forward thinking, with the benefit of hindsight…
May 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
sjd, you won’t get a pro-abortion argument out of me. But it is part of the political scene that the Dems have some pro-lifers (Casey) and the GOP has some pro-choicers (Rudy)..
So there’s nothing wrong for the two sides to argue on this site, provided that it is done in respectful terms.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Econ Grad Stud:
Yeah, Ahmadinejad is just pandering to those young anti-semites.
Right, just like Hitler was pandering to all his young anti-semites before he exterminated the Jews.
You are just as much of an ignorant dreamer as Obama. Iran’s killing the Jews is not a pander, it’s a religous belief!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
JayPe, don’t you dare argue for civility on this site with all the disingenuity in your body, while only a second ago denigrate peoples’ understanding of the English language! (Especially when you, sir, were completely ignorant to the foolishness of your own assertion of comparative English!!!!!)
May 19th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Ahmadinejad does not control Iran’s armed forces. He does not decide if they go to war, and if they do he is not Commander in Chief.
The Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the U.S. Neither Iran, nor Cuba, nor Venezuela, are anywhere near.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Right, Tony, because the Iranian leadership who installed Ahmadenijad into power are are agnostic or atheist or areligious.
Idiot.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
sjd, you can call everyone who disagrees with you an “idiot”, but it doesn’t alter the fact that they disagree with you, and it won’t help them be persuaded by your arguments.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
About Reagan:
Reagan negotiated with Gorbecev with the same strength as a fully-loaded Rambo thrashing into a yoga class.
The Obama comparison to Reagan is so weak it’s LAUGHABLE.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
sjd, thanks for the compliment. It’s great when people argue over facts and data, instead of using ad hominem attacks.
I’m not sure what you’re point is. Are you saying that Ahmadinejad represents the true beliefs and intentions of the Iranian clerics, and if so, do you have any links to support that contention? Do you have any links to support the idea that the clerics “installed” Ahmadinejad into power?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Tony:
I used my ad hominem attack only after I logically filled-in your missed assumption with a strong fact (albeit sarcastically). Take that.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
And if your argument is idiotic, I have every right to say so.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Re: 49. Which would be …?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
JayPe:
I’m not attempting to persuade you. I’m attempting to show-off your foolishness to all who read this site. And showing-off your foolishness is pretty easy to do (if I may be so humble).
May 19th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Look, Tony, you assumed Iranian leadership was agnostic, atheist, or areligious, and they REALLY DON’T believe that the 12th Imam will come upon armageddon. A religous belief is a religious belief, no matter how much in denial YOU are about such religious belief. You are naive as they come.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Hahaha
sjd, what’s wrong? Surely you’re not this unpleasant in real life?
And incidentally, comparing Obama to Reagan is fine when we are talking about meeting with avowed enemies of the State. Reagan did it. Obama said he would do it. So the comparison is perfectly valid.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
And incidentally, comparing Obama to Reagan is fine when we are talking about meeting with avowed enemies of the State. Reagan did it. Obama said he would do it. So the comparison is perfectly valid.
It’s not about “meeting with enemies of the state” — we do this all the time.
It’s about whether our meeting has preconditions or would benefit only the enemy.
Obama is being extremely foolish by doing something that would help the Iranian regime, harm our cause, and send mixed messages to our allies as well as a message of encouragement to jihadists all over.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
In other words: They’re in the wrong and he’s talking about us making concessions.
What a hack!
May 19th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Alex, thank you for disagreeing with me without calling me an idiot, or naive, or some other insult. You are an example to others
Now, to the argument…
Would a meeting without preconditions benefit only the enemy? Well, it might. Or it might not. Some diplomatic meetings are completely useless, as we both know. So, the question is, what preconditions should Obama insist on, say with Iran?
Then we can discuss the value of the preconditions!
For example, he has said he wouldn’t meet Hamas before they recognise Israel. So that’s a precondition that would be valid.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I for one see no reason for the President to meet with Iranian diplomats. Unlike the USSR, Iran doesn’t warrant that level of respect.
On the other hand high level meetings between the Secretary of State and Iran power brokers could be beneficial. Preferably they’d be be clandestine and austere.
We can’t know Bush hasn’t been sending low-level diplomats to Iran.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
HEY JAYPE YOUR 54 POST WILL SHOW-OFF TO THE WORLD YOUR STARK STUPIDITY.
There’s a difference between meeting your enemy with a Reagan-gun to his head versus weilding an Obama-toothpik-and-argument.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Would a meeting without preconditions benefit only the enemy? Well, it might. Or it might not. Some diplomatic meetings are completely useless, as we both know. So, the question is, what preconditions should Obama insist on, say with Iran? Then we can discuss the value of the preconditions! For example, he has said he wouldn’t meet Hamas before they recognise Israel. So that’s a precondition that would be valid.
Same with Iran. That could be a goal: make it recognize Israel.
We gain nothing by meeting with Iran without preconditions. Iran has everything to gain.
What on Earth could possibly be a benefit of meeting with Iran without preconditions?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
#59
Oh, is Obama going to remove the American nuclear deterrant? I would argue that Obama would have more military backing vs Iran than Reagan did vs USSR. Which is stating the obvious really.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
We gain nothing by meeting with Iran without preconditions. Iran has everything to gain.
What on Earth could possibly be a benefit of meeting with Iran without preconditions?
Just out of curiousity, what do Iran gain? If Obama meets with them and says: “we had a lot of disagreements, and I warned the President that he cannot continue to threaten Israel’s existance, or develop nuclear weapons”. That doesn’t help Iran. Nor does it help the USA much (its re-stating the current position) but it opens the door for Iran to back down. Which is a big if of course.
But the if is the possible benefit. By opening dialogue you give the enemy the opportunity to see that you are tough (’I can warn you in person as well as via TV’) and gives the enemy an opportunity to back down.
Not saying I agree with meeting without preconditions, but there is a POTENTIAL benefit there.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Re: 53. Thanks, more compliments. Can you give some background reading on the current Iranian leadership and the particular belief to which you are referring?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Re. 61 JayPe
Exactly. The U.S. wields far more power relative to Iran than it did relative to the Soviet Union.
Not only does the U.S. have a vast nuclear arsenal, while Iran has (presumably) none, the U.S. has just invaded two of Iran’s neighbors and currently has hundreds of thousands of military personnel in those countries and has a huge naval presence sitting off of their coast.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
egs/Tony,
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
May 19th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I understand the opposition to presidential dialogue with Iran, but I also believe that the next president should enter the white house with a promise of greater emphasis on international relations. A stated willing to meet even with rogue regimes is an important symbolic gesture to a world that believes the US is overly militaristic. This is especially true in the middle east where tensions tend to run high. This requires America to concede nothing and this is what I believe Obama is arguing for. I see no downside or weakness in this policy, but the upside is that it increases the potential of a diplomatic breakthrough.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Senator Obama needs a history lesson. There was a nation in Asia roughly 60 years ago that gave us a lot of headaches. It was Japan Senator. They weren’t too big either.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
This seems like a reasonable assessment. I do not agree with appeasing Iran or North Korea… but they, Iran especially, pose far less of a threat than the Soviet Union of old or the Russia and China of today.
The little tyrants have a far greater chance of creating conflict, simply because they have less to lose and more to gain (martyrdom?), in terms of United States interests. But neither can directly or independently sustain military action against the United States.
Militarily, North Korea can tie down a large portion of our ground and naval forces in a prolonged conflict that would put in danger millions of our allies civilian populations (South Korea and Japan). But, aside from China using our distraction to move on Taiwan, it is unlikely that North Korea would pose any great threat to the United States.
Iran might be able to disrupt significant portions or the world’s oil supply, but major ground operations against Iraq would be pure foolishness as sustainable air superiority by the United States is already positioned in the region. There would be the potential for a larger regional conflict if Iran pulled Israel and Syria into the mix. And again, Russia might see an opportunity to weaken the United States.
Russia and China are the real threats. Look for a major Taiwan incident after the Beijing Olympics. Russia’s Tsar will support China against her old foe, as he seeks to regain control of all those wayward “republics”.
John McCain is certainly better equipped to handle these enemies big or small. But, let our political dialogue outshine the Obama defenders who wrongly and loudly presumed Bush was speaking about him in Israel.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Huh? You think Iran, which has a small navy and is flying old jets for which it lacks parts is equivalent to the Japanese Empire?! That is absurd.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Aron, Rafsanjani is a politician from the business community. He’s got no power in Iran.
Supreme Leader Khamenei is in charge and he’s letting his powerless puppets rattle sabers.
I think we’ll see a nuclear Iran but the goal is hegemony in Iraq and Lebanon. Passing traceable Iranian nukes onto terrorists hurts that goal.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I’m using the context of Obama’s speech. Japan is small compared to the U.S.S.R. Japan also had no nuclear weapons (but wanted to), was killing American soldiers (as Iran’s proxies in Iraq are), and used suicide attacks against Americans. The comparison is warranted.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
CBL, good points. I would argue, however, that Russia and China are not real threats either. Both countries, despite economic strides, are still basically poor with armed forces that are no match for ours although both do pose theoretical threats to their neighbors.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
CBL, you’re spot on. Iran is Russia/China’s yapping poodle.
Without Russia or Chinese power Iran would have no ability to step out of line.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Every country is small compared to USSR or Russia given that its the largest country in the world. But your comparison fails because the Japanese Empire controlled most of Asia at its height and it was allied with Germany and Italy. But I don’t think Obama was referencing square miles as much as Iran’s armed forces because he stated how little they spent on their military.
But the essential point that the USSR was a far greater threat than Iran is today is simply a truism that should not be disputed.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
#74
It is true that the U.S.S.R. was a bigger threat than Iran, but that does not mean that it is not a big threat. Russia now is a paper bear. It can cause us headaches in Eastern Europe and the former U.S.S.R. nations but that’s about it. China doesn’t want to hurt us, it would be too costly to their economy. Right now along with Al-Qaeda, Iran is the biggest threat to America.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
the danger with islamic radicals is that there is no deterrent as there was with the soviets. the soviets feared mutual destruction, but a bunch of suicide bombers don’t care about deterrents.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
#76
That is why Japan, in my view, was more dangerous than Germany. Except for Hitler, Himmler and a few others, the German High Command didn’t want to fight to the end. Tojo and the Japanese leadership were willing to destroy Japan in fuitless resistance.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
It’s never about size; it’s about how you use it. Imagine a country the size of Alabama controlling the world…
wikipedia:
May 19th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I believe that there has never been an enemy more threatening to our Nation than Iran poses today. President Ronald Reagan understood the threat of Iran and he boxed Iran in not by talking with them or negotiating with them but by THREATENING them. That is what we must do to gain their respect. We must topple their government because it is illegitimate and evil.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
You must live in a different country because by “our nation” you can’t mean the US.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
It strikes that the way we’re speaking about this issue is all very wrong-headed. It is manifestly the case that Iran has far lesser military capacities then the USSR at it’s peak. But, rarely do conflicts of this nature rest on this sort of assumption in the modern. Gone is the balance of power diplomacy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Now we’ve entered an era of both asymmetric warfare and asymmetric diplomacy, where are nation’s interests are held hostage to a pre-defined set of rules about “proportional” responses and the like, that dictate how a world power is meant to behave. In this sense, Iran is a far greater threat to us then the Soviet Union. Precisely because of it’s size, and relative weakness, our practical options are incredibly limited in terms of engagement.
A century ago, Iran would have been no threat at all. In the modern era, we’re hamstrung by an “international community” which will, for all intents and purposes, tie our hands until an absolute breaking point arrives. This is especially true if Barack is elected. A century ago, had Iran been training fighters to kill Americans, had they been sponsoring terrorism, had they been actively pursuing a bomb capable of eradicating a few cities in a small country , we would have simply bombed them. Well, WE might not have, because we were terribly isolationist a century ago, but someone would have, without hesitation. Now we’re discussing a major presidential candidate having a nice chat with this country’s leader, without pre-conditions, to see if he can get them to, you know, tone down the hatred.
And the idea isn’t immediately dismissed by every relevant player. The difficulty we, even the United States, exists in an international community, while Iran does not. We voluntarily put shackles around our power; Iran has no such limitations. In the 19th century, even the small player’s adhered to same basic system, with it’s temporary alliances. Now we have a world that plays by a set of artificial rules, and a world that makes their own rules. And again, this was not the case regarding the Soviet. That was very much a balance of power situation; the Warsaw Pact, NATO, the UN, all of this was designed with classic nation-state balance of power considerations in mind.,
In what conceivable sense could Iran be attempting to level the “balance of power”? It’s precisely because they have no conceivable way of competing with us within the system, that they’re so dangerous. So I think in a sense, even the classic language of conservatives is inappropriate. It’s not that Iran is irrational, and the Soviet Union wasn’t, that should be a cause for a worry. Iran is quite rational. They’re attempting to gain power, and that the best way of doing this in the modern world, is as a seemingly “tiny” and “non-threatening” rogue state, existing outside of international law. What’s changed is that we are no longer rational; it strikes us as perfectly consistent to say “we could obliterate Iran if we wanted to, and they wouldn’t be able to retaliate” while maintaining that “it’s a tough situation, and we’re not sure if can prevent them from getting the bomb”.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I was referring to the mindset of the 19th century, by the way, not the actual combat. I’m well aware that we didn’t have much in the way of “bombing” capacities a century ago.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:46 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw
!!!!!
May 20th, 2008 at 12:46 am
!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw
!!!!!
May 20th, 2008 at 12:54 am
The problem is deeper than all you pseudo-liberal-academics think.
!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw
!!!!!
May 20th, 2008 at 12:56 am
All of you appeasement people. YES APPEASEMENT! YOU DON’T GET IT!
!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw
!!!!!
May 20th, 2008 at 1:02 am
One more time…for those of you too lazy to listen.
!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw
!!!!!
May 20th, 2008 at 2:08 am
sjd… for someone I’ve never seen post here before, your very, very, angry at everyone and have way too much time on your hands to triple post everything you say.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am
The more times it’s posted, the truer it becomes!
May 20th, 2008 at 7:33 am
New this morning:
I was watching T. Boone Pickens this morning on CNBC because oil/energy really interests me. He is of course a republican and knows McCain has proposed a gas tax holiday, which is why it surprised me that he totally trashed the idea. He said something like “idiot politicians have proposed a gas tax holiday. That’s not an energy policy and it wouldn’t work.” He went on to say that oil will hit $150/bl this year.
House GOP has also latched onto the gas tax holiday. The politics are not clear, but it is a terrible idea.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:35 am
I should add that the CEO of Exxon also said it would only increase demand and if anything prices would rise. He said that in an interview with Matt Lauer.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Matthew makes good points. Perhaps all it will take is the incineration of Tel Aviv before this self imposed mentality of “proportional responses” is dismissed.
On 911, as the towers were falling, my mother asked me “what does it mean”. I said it means war, if we will have but the will to fight it.
Unfortunately, the United States has not understood the concept of “Total War” since WWII. We thought we could fight in Korea and Vietnam while maintaining the status quo for the rest of the population not directly employed in the armed services. You know the results of the conflicts with those “small” countries (and their larger surrogates, Russia and China).
With little foresight our leadership said that AVOIDING Total War was a precondition for victory over terrorism… in other words “go on with your life as normal… don’t let the terrorists win”. Unfortunately, the dust bin of history is littered with nation states and empires that failed to mobilize its entire economy and people to fight against formidable foes.
A good example is Nazi Germany. As allied bombs rained down night and day, as Soviet forces turned the tide in the east… German factories were still producing lipstick. Lipstick in the mistaken belief that you could fight a pitched war against a determined enemy while maintaining the standard of living for the population at large.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:07 am
A good example is Nazi Germany. As allied bombs rained down night and day, as Soviet forces turned the tide in the east… German factories were still producing lipstick. Lipstick in the mistaken belief that you could fight a pitched war against a determined enemy while maintaining the standard of living for the population at large.
And our factories were producing tanks, planes and ammunition. Now days we will have to outsource that to China.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Ugh, more WWII analogies.
Regarding diplomacy with or w/o preconditions, Prez Bush went to Saudis and asked for more oil. Did he not do any groundwork before hand? It is unseemly to go to the Saudis and beg for oil and get slapped down publicly. Perhaps Bush should have considered his own advice and sought preconditions firt.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Regarding diplomacy with or w/o preconditions, Prez Bush went to Saudis and asked for more oil. Did he not do any groundwork before hand? It is unseemly to go to the Saudis and beg for oil and get slapped down publicly. Perhaps Bush should have considered his own advice and sought preconditions firt.
What happened to Bush’s steely resolve, eh?
Maybe if our public would wise up on basic economics.
God, I hate the public.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am
For those of you using the (false) analogy of Pres Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev, you conveniently forget some important details. Did Pres Reagan negotiate with Breshnev or Khruschev (I don’t have the spelling of those names, so they might not be right)? No, he didn’t (if you don’t know these names, they were the two Soviet leaders preceding Gorbachev). Both ranted and raved about destroying the US, and Pres Reagan was right to not hold meetings with them.
The lesson to learn is that you don’t just negotiate with anyone. You also negotiate with a firm purpose in mind, not just some hope that, maybe if we are nice and talk to them, they’ll come around and we can sing kumbaya by the campfire. Sen Obama doesn’t appear to understand this, and neither do several of the people posting here (but by all means stick around).
May 20th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Krushchev had been replaced by Brehznev before Reagan’s election and Brehznev died in ‘82 before he and Reagan met (I believe), however Nixon, Ford and Carter had met with him. It should also be noted that when Gorbachev and Reagan met Russian troops were in Afghanistan over US objection even though Reagan was secretly arming the Taliban.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Our World: Obama’s unique appeasement style
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668679789&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
May 20th, 2008 at 11:23 am
US denies report on plan to attack Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
May 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Alex is getting religion!
May 20th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Pablo, I’ll give you Krushchev in this. That’s my error. On Brehznev, I doubt Pres Reagan was going to sit down with him at some point, seeing what he said about him in The Reagan Diaries. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Now, as for what Pres Carter and Pres Nixon did, I think that’s a red herring. Pres Carter was probably the WORST example of how to handle foreign policy. With all due respect to Pres Nixon’s administration, however, did he win the Cold War? No. Did Pres Reagan? Yes. Did Pres Reagan meet with Brehznev? No. Did he meet with Gorbachev? Yes, but only AFTER receiving personal communications from him that convinced him that there would be a point to having talks (again, from the Reagan Diaries, which is a fascinating read on the inner workings of the White House during a remarkable period in American history).
May 20th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Back to the topic headline “Never Mind These Next Six Months; We Win”.
Does anyone think the election is going to turn on whether a candidate will or won’t talk anyway?
It doesn’t exactly evoke a ringing “Morning in America” type slogan.