Maybe not Obama's take in the rise of ISIS but...
 

For the sake of discussion lets agree that Petraeus screwed up in spectacular fashion that only a politician can get away with. This way we can skip the periphery and get to the heart of the issue.

Lets instead go to his interview on Iraq / ISIS, 2015, and how we got where we are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oblem-in-iraq/

Read the whole thing - halfway through myself but off to the daily grind - looks like a Joe Friday type piece.

i haven't read it yet.... JR
but curiosity makes me wonder where these ISIS bastards
get their ammunition from.... and that's where we should focus
our attention with some special force's missions and blow it all up.

It sounds like he is being very careful and sketchy about what he is saying. As if he was careful not to have another bag of poo dropped on his head. Sort of have to read between the lines re what went wrong and how to fix it.

Probably Bass Pro.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kudlow's take on the Petraeus interview:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

I think Kudlow is mostly missing the point. Petraeus isn't stating the Iran threat in the context of Israel as Netenyahu did, he's speaking in terms of theater wide conflict.

It also begs the question, if a deal can't keep Iran away from a bomb, what's the alternative approach?

Nobody seems to want to talk about that.

What's stopping you?

I think the deal has potential, what's stopping you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It also begs the question, if a deal can't keep Iran away from a bomb, what's the alternative approach?

Nobody seems to want to talk about that.[/QUOTE]

Stronger sanctions will do more then this deal . Ask Netanyahu. He might have a better idea .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought, by what you said, that you wondered why nobody was talking about "the alternative approach". So you think the alternative approach to the deal is "the deal has potential"? I don't know if that's circular or just stagnant.

How about this as an alternative approach. Obama likes to use the military for peaceful, constructive things instead of always sending it to break and destroy. So, he could magnanimously offer to send the Army Corps of Engineers, or even some greedy capitalist American company, a Haliburton type, to build Iran's nuclear power plants for peaceful use. And we could maintain it for them, thus ensure no hanky panky. Iran, of course, would have to give up its current centrifuges and other paraphernalia and documents. We would do it all at U.S. expense. What's another hundreds of billions or trillions added to the debt. Maybe we could rescind the food stamp program, and the agricultural and corporate welfare programs. Maybe we could even build transatlantic pipes from the Iranian nuclear plants to U.S. distribution facilities to replace the crony capital funding of wind power. Nah, the greenies wouldn't allow it. Crap, there's always some bug in negotiation. This would, no doubt, make the Iranians pleased as punch, and make them an ally. It would halfway immediately solve Middle East tensions, remove the need for Iran to threaten Israel's extinction, create the peace and prosperity and brotherly love that Obama promised the Iranian people if a "deal" could be accomplished.

Or, how about not giving a crap if they get the bomb or not. Hell, we could even help them build it. After all, they think like us, right? That's what makes negotiations possible. Like minded "folks" getting together to make goody for everyone. I mean, what on earth would folks who think like us do with the bomb? Not to worry.

To be a bit more rational, if Iran really wants the bomb they are not going to make a deal that stops them from getting it. If they really don't want the bomb, negotiations should not be difficult--should have been accomplished long, long ago, even pre-Dubbya. So an alternative approach would have to include either incorporating Iran's getting the bomb, or forcefully destroying its ability to so get.

Your turn.

I'm not sure the bomb gets them anything right now. There would likely be even harsher penalties (including military) that would just set them back further. Their Arabian enemies don't have them so what's the point?

Any why should this make negotiation easy? From their perspective the bigger a perceived threat only bolsters their position to get more from a deal.

What's the difference between forcefully destroying their ability or limiting it through inspections or other means? Centrifuges are just material and can be rebuilt.

Iran will never have a nuke as long as Isreal exists. They won't let it happen, they cannot let it happen.

Maybe, just maybe, "the point" is what many in Iran state "the point" is, which woul dbe to develop th ebomb, then lob it into Israel. Do you not listen to anything these people say? Iran is on eof the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. Maybe it behooves us to keep nukes out of their hands?

"I'm not sure the bomb gets them anything right now. "

It gets them the ability to incinerate an awful lot of Jews.

If they really want the bomb, they are not going to negotiate away their ability to get it. Perpetual negotiations, interspersed with agreements which will ultimately be circumvented, allows the eventual getting of the bomb.

So, getting back to your wanting a discussion of an alternative approach to negotiations, what would that be in your opinion? You say there is no difference between force and negotiation, so what is the alternative approach?

Could it be, rather than merely destroying their capabillity (temporarily as you say), the alternative approach would be to permanently destroy them. If you look at it through their eyes instead of yours, you might see that the confrontation is what they ultimately want. And their objective is to destroy you. And getting the bomb would surely aid them in that objective.

And strict oversight with an empowered IAEA would likely prevent it. We'll on what their leadership is willing to pony up to. If they agree to have their uranium converted to medical use as is being discussed you'd think maybe they aren't that eager.

If the point is to prohibit a bomb, and both methods are successful perhaps you should choose the more constructive means.

Who's them? The mullahs? The Iranian people? The Republican Guard?

Seems like the military really has the power and I'd wager their interest is staying in power. If they get an open confrontation with the West they'll lose that power. The Iranian people appear to have a very positive view of Americans. Perhaps that's who Obama was speaking to when you thought he was talking to himself.

And bring about their own destruction? Never going to happen.

That's why I pointed out that he showed nothing but words to support them when they tried to rise up against their dictators. Yet, on the other hand, they see how he has been actively supporting the overthrow of other dictators. And how the leader of their own "green" movement to overthrow the mullahs called for strict adherence to their constitution, while, for all the world including the Iranian people, Obama displays contempt for our Constitution. And how he coddles the opponents of our strongest ally in the area while chastising it and trying to scare it into submission. His speech to the Iranian people, or to whoever else it was meant, was still only empty words, backed only by contradiction and unreliability. What was there in his speech that would encourage them to rely on his assistance, or anything else.? They are already under the thumb of their rulers, and his negotiations will not change that, nor can it make their voices any more heard by the mullahs than it already is.

Perhaps they increased the volume of enriched uranium with the assumption they could bargain it away if need be. Still would retain the knowledge that has duel purpose. Smart move on their part.
I'm waiting for those who oppose an Obama led deal, one that they are opposing before they know what's in it, to propose something that's actually feasible. Not the same empty rhetoric we got from Bibi on Capital Hill.

Now you're conflating issues. If the "real Islam" is as you say what ISIS is, and the goal of the Iranian theocrats is to ultimately destroy the west, why on earth would they collaborate with emerging markets who can't grow without a successful western economy?

Perhaps their motives aren't as you describe, perhaps Islam isn't as you describe.

Interesting thing I found earlier but forgot to post.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124494788

So what should Obama have done during the Green Revolution? Hired Oliver North to arrange an arms deal?

This is a slow lean. There's a demographic change in Iran underway that will demand the authority come up with a new formula. The old mode of resisting Western influence isn't going to work when your younger population happens to love Americans.

Also, on Hannity the other day he was comparing Bibi to Reagan. A man who in recent days has issued more retractions than I've ever seen from someone who just won an election.

Such leadership the GOP admires...

The younger population has, I don't know if loved is too strong a word, but let's go with it, has loved Americans for a long time. Many of them are no longer so young. As far as demographic change goes, the world is constantly going through demographic change. It would be lovely if what makes the younger populations love America is not, itself, a victim of demographic change. The older West, Europe, has gone through massive demographic, cultural, and political changes and continues to do so. And the progressives here seem to want to move in Europe's direction rather than preserving Americanism. It would be lovely if we preserved the freedoms and liberties that have been a magnet to the rest of the world and caused the younger population of Iran to love us.

At best, it gains them a significant security blanket that changes - to the benefit of Iran - how diplomacy is handled and pressure is applied. Any nation and the "Internationalk Community" will have far less leverage to use against Iran.

Iran with The Bomb now hold significant additional sway amongst other neighboring countries - those countries will be forced to get a bomb and you have a nuclear arms race amongst the most unstable countries in the world. Unstable becuase of current government and unstable i that they have shown they can be toppled.

At worst - bye bye Israel. Bye Bye several large population centers in the US or overseas.

this is amusing......i think Bibi and Reagan as leaders stack up pretty well against obama, hillary, peolsi, h reid, j kerry, j biden, a gore, b clinton when it comes to leadership, honesty, decency, integrity and generally doing the right thing with regard to the trust that the public places/placed in them


keep it up spence....satan needs an advocate:af:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...iran/70342048/