Treaty w/ russia...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.

So, then, maybe, we should "project" that we will use them instead of promising that we won't.

We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.

Geez, I wonder how they got that impression.

This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.

-spence

Didn't the terrified Iran have a lot to do with the "civilians" effing up the occupation?

Since we haven't taken using nukes against Iran off the table if they continue with their nuclear program, does that mean that they'll be terrified into quitting it? And if cutting our nuclear armaments by a third inspires others to do so, why not go all the way--get rid of the entire cache?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Didn't the terrified Iran have a lot to do with the "civilians" effing up the occupation?

I believe Iran was intimidated by the ability of a limited US force to so quickly assert themselves in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly this was driven by civilian policy and executed by the military.

The same civilians also led the policy which didn't plan for the next day, and in this often differed from the advice of the Generals.

So yes and no.

Since we haven't taken using nukes against Iran off the table if they continue with their nuclear program, does that mean that they'll be terrified into quitting it?

Probably not, hence my multiple comments above.

And if cutting our nuclear armaments by a third inspires others to do so, why not go all the way--get rid of the entire cache?

I think we'd all agree that nuclear capability is important to maintain. We would also probably agree that excess nuclear stockpiles are harder to control and work against efforts for non-proliferation.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Iran was intimidated by the ability of a limited US force to so quickly assert themselves in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly this was driven by civilian policy and executed by the military.

The same civilians also led the policy which didn't plan for the next day, and in this often differed from the advice of the Generals.

So yes and no.

Neither you nor I know if Iran was intimidated by US force, limited or otherwise. I would think they were more intimidated by a "democratic" Iraq even more than a Sadaam Husein Iraq. They were certainly bold enough to instigate and aid the "insurgents" that tried to destroy the democracy. The imperfect "civilians" may not have calculated that at first, but were flexible enough to change tactics. Such is war. No doubt, Obama is perfect and won't make any mistakes. As for apples and oranges, Bush faced a different world than Obama is facing now. Before his, what you consider, blunder, NOTHING of substance was being done to check an emboldening radical Islam. His "blunder" flushed out the rats and created a new face in the middle east. I believe that new face is the real threat to the Mullahs of Iran, not our nukes or marines. And the fence sitting royals of Saudi Arabia, etc. now must not only fear Al Quaeda influence in their population, but an even greater menace of democratic yearnings. If they are any students of history, I would think that they will prepare for some orderly democratization rather than a surrender to Iranian dominance.

I think we'd all agree that nuclear capability is important to maintain. We would also probably agree that excess nuclear stockpiles are harder to control and work against efforts for non-proliferation.

-spence

There is no way to erase the existence and knowledge of nuclear power. Even if all present stockpiles were eliminated, the knowledge is there for an "evil" presence to use it. So we would probably all agree (except for the dreamiest peace mongers) that we should maintain a strong nuclear capability. If Obama believes in, supports, maintains, and provides for a STRONG US military, in all phases, and continues to use that power in our interest, I have no quarrel with him in that respect. His mission to fundamentally change America is another matter. Our foundation is our strength. Please, leave that alone.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Neither you nor I know if Iran was intimidated by US force, limited or otherwise. I would think they were more intimidated by a "democratic" Iraq even more than a Sadaam Husein Iraq.

From what I've read it's been about the force. I think Iran knows pretty well how a democratic Iraq would behave. Considering the demographic alignment with their own people and culture, a democratic Iraq might actually be far more desirable than a Sunni dictator.

They were certainly bold enough to instigate and aid the "insurgents" that tried to destroy the democracy.

The insurgents weren't trying to destroy "democracy", they were mostly in a sectarian power grab and trying to settle old scores.

The imperfect "civilians" may not have calculated that at first, but were flexible enough to change tactics. Such is war.

The reporting on this is pretty clear. Rumsfeld wanted nothing to do with post invasion planning. The ideologues were convinced that their understanding of human nature was pure. Clearly nobody in charge bothered to study the founding fathers or pick up a history book.

No doubt, Obama is perfect and won't make any mistakes.

Non sequitur?

As for apples and oranges, Bush faced a different world than Obama is facing now.

True, the Dow was nearly 12,000

Other than that it's pretty much the same world, aside from little being done to curb North Korea or Iran.

Before his, what you consider, blunder, NOTHING of substance was being done to check an emboldening radical Islam. His "blunder" flushed out the rats and created a new face in the middle east.

And in the process convinced a huge number of mice that they were in fact rats!

The "new face" is more opposition to Western values. Is the world more or less democratic because of Bush's policies? Looking at Egypt, Russia, Iran etc... there's not a good story.

I believe that new face is the real threat to the Mullahs of Iran, not our nukes or marines. And the fence sitting royals of Saudi Arabia, etc. now must not only fear Al Quaeda influence in their population, but an even greater menace of democratic yearnings. If they are any students of history, I would think that they will prepare for some orderly democratization rather than a surrender to Iranian dominance.

There is no surrender of Sunni's to Iran. The US policy is firmly in the camp of Sunni Islam. al Qaeda influence is small at best and getting weaker. The real threat is from the more legitimate issues that al Qaeda also used to gain acceptance, and that other actors will also exploit to legitimize their own political ambitions.

is no way to erase the existence and knowledge of nuclear power. Even if all present stockpiles were eliminated, the knowledge is there for an "evil" presence to use it. So we would probably all agree (except for the dreamiest peace mongers) that we should maintain a strong nuclear capability. If Obama believes in, supports, maintains, and provides for a STRONG US military, in all phases, and continues to use that power in our interest, I have no quarrel with him in that respect.

Obama seems quite content to spend billions on defense and kill enemies at will. He's no pacifist...BTW the Left hates him for this.

His mission to fundamentally change America is another matter. Our foundation is our strength. Please, leave that alone.

It's not a surprise that conservatives would take issue with a remark like this. After all, conservatives are about conservation, change must be bad...if it's not broke, don't fix it...right?

Perhaps this was a mistake in it's ambiguity, it certainly left the tin foil hat crowd an opportunity to interpret it however they like. I think the Obama Administration has made this same mistake many times.

But Obama hasn't said anything that indicates he wants to "change" the fabric of America. Liberal and Conservative positions are all a part of who we are. A spirit of innovation and growth is a part of who we are.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read it's been about the force. I think Iran knows pretty well how a democratic Iraq would behave. Considering the demographic alignment with their own people and culture, a democratic Iraq might actually be far more desirable than a Sunni dictator.

The insurgents weren't trying to destroy "democracy", they were mostly in a sectarian power grab and trying to settle old scores.

It's not how a democratic Iraq would behave to which I refer. It's how Iranian's and others in the region would react, in time, to seeing their neighbors, who once were under autocratic rule, now choosing leaders. The need of mullahs to suppress such ideas has been difficult enough in Iran without having the citizens of a once mortal enemy now having a freedom that many Iranians wish they had. Even, and especially, in dictatorships and theocracies, the people are a constant threat.

The reporting on this is pretty clear. Rumsfeld wanted nothing to do with post invasion planning. The ideologues were convinced that their understanding of human nature was pure. Clearly nobody in charge bothered to study the founding fathers or pick up a history book.

I believe that the reporting is pretty clear that Rumsfeld was removed and direction was changed.

Non sequitur?

With a point.

True, the Dow was nearly 12,000

Yeah, Georgie got it up there, didn't he? No doubt it will get there again. The Dow has been rising the past 40 years as well as the National Debt. The rise in Government spending has been incessant, a constant setting of records from one administration to the next. And the value of the dollar has correspondingly fallen. But that's a little non sequitur of your own. You know that I was referring to radical Islam, not the economy. What is the connection between a 12,000 Dow and the invasion of Iraq?

Other than that it's pretty much the same world, aside from little being done to curb North Korea or Iran.

No, the world was forced to see a threat that it ignored.

And in the process convinced a huge number of mice that they were in fact rats!

They were already rats and had acted as such for a long time. They were not, in their eyes, mice. Nor rats, for that matter. Their Jihad was roiling in relative anonymity, with occasional outbursts, worldwide. There was planning to create cells, worldwide, cadres that would replace those who died, and the West's perception that they were insignificant, if they were perceived at all, allowed them to gather for a future storm in relative security. They, actually, perceived the West as mice. And thought that a 9/11 attack on the epitome of Western power would frighten us into retreat and embolden their followers by showing how weak we were. Afghanistan, Iraq, then who knows next, prematurely flushed them out into open combat, and it exposed how rat-like and defeatable they are--IF WE PERSIST. And a democratic Iraq, with the life of individual citizens actually improved, would be a substantial threat to their ambitions.

The "new face" is more opposition to Western values. Is the world more or less democratic because of Bush's policies? Looking at Egypt, Russia, Iran etc... there's not a good story.

What Bush policy has changed Egypt, Russia, Iran? They were somehow better before Bush policies? I suppose you've read some books that proved how they were just swimmingly going along till Bush policied them and they just decided to retaliate and become . . . what? Iraq is definitely better because of Bush policies. Anyway, what are you looking for, overnight perfection? After 230 years the U.S. is still bickering, and due to Obama policies, about to lose some more of its individual liberties.

There is no surrender of Sunni's to Iran. The US policy is firmly in the camp of Sunni Islam. al Qaeda influence is small at best and getting weaker. The real threat is from the more legitimate issues that al Qaeda also used to gain acceptance, and that other actors will also exploit to legitimize their own political ambitions.

Al Qaeda is getting weaker because it was forced to actually fight. They, and "other actors" were and will be exploiting to "legitimize" their political ambitions. That certainly happens here in the good ol' US of A. As the "people" get wind of resisting being oppressed by these "actors" and enjoy the ability to vote them out, their lot will improve.

Obama seems quite content to spend billions on defense and kill enemies at will. He's no pacifist...BTW the Left hates him for this.

Good.

But Obama hasn't said anything that indicates he wants to "change" the fabric of America.

-spence

Yes he has.

[justplugit]

So much for Iran not being a nuclear threat to the US.

Reported today they will have the ICBM capabilities to
hit the US by 2015.

So aside from negotiation what is our military contingency?