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

[JohnR]

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/

What has happened in Iraq is a tragedy — for the Iraqi people, for the region and for the entire world. It is tragic foremost because it didn't have to turn out this way. The hard-earned progress of the Surge was sustained for over three years. What transpired after that, starting in late 2011, came about as a result of mistakes and misjudgments whose consequences were predictable. And there is plenty of blame to go around for that.

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

[Raven]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Raven

i haven't read it yet.... JR
but curiosity makes me wonder where these ISIS bastards
get their ammunition from....

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

[detbuch]

Kudlow's take on the Petraeus interview:

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What's stopping you?

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

[buckman]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the deal has potential, what's stopping you?
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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Not being sure is a result of analyzing the situation through your, I assume, western secular relativist perspective. Try immersing your thought process in Islamic Theo/political perspective. If you desire to know what is valuable to their theological perspective, divest yourself of all your secular pragmatic notions limited by materialism and Western psychobabble and think as an Islamist. And if you want to know what is politically valuable to them, first understand that their politics is not separate from their theology. The two are symbiotically intertwined. Their theology is, in Western terms, their mission statement. Their politics is the enforcement of the mission. If, in "doing the search," you find that the mission is expansionist in nature and by decree, then you might understand that the sword, which was so effective in times past, needs updating. You don't bring a sword to a bomb fight.

And, anyway, if you want to stick to your limited secular perspective, you can arrive at a conclusion that those who want to maintain power must have the force to oppose those who wish to take the power from them.

And if your not sure of who is trying to take the power from them, look at who is confronting them at the negotiating table.

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?

Their minor arch enemy, Israel, does have them. And their major arch enemy, the West, has many more.

You like to bring up the dog chasing tail conundrum of sanctions being needed to stop Iran from getting the bomb, but getting the bomb being needed to stop sanctions. Doesn't that model also describe the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma model of even harsher penalties being needed to prevent the bomb, but the bomb being needed to discourage the harsher penalties?

Any why should this make negotiation easy?

The easier referred to the situation where Iran really didn't want the bomb, not to the one where they did.

From their perspective the bigger a perceived threat only bolsters their position to get more from a deal.

Again with the dog chasing tail conundrum.

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Oh for Big Bang's sake! IF THEY WANT THE URANIUM CONVERTED FOR WHATEVER PEACEFUL SAKE THAT WOULD BE SOOOOO EASY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO EASY FOR A LONG TIME. THEY DON'T HAVE TO THREATEN, OR ACTUALLY ATTEMPT, TO GET THE BOMB IN ORDER TO GET PEACEFUL URANIUM CONVERSION. Geez . . . I mean holy accident . . . what's the mystery?

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

Hey, you're the one who asked for a discussion on an alternative approach if a deal can't stop Iran from getting a bomb. You either keep falling back on the deal being some form of alternative approach to itself, or you just can't get yourself to say what an actual alternative approach would be. Just too horrible to say, I guess.

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

I have specifically said several times that its the theocratic leaders (not the people) with whom the negotiations must ultimately be made. Khamenei will put the thumb up or down.

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.

Is the military an autonomous segment of the population, or is it under the control of the theocrats? They certainly wouldn't want to get into a confrontation with the West if they don't have the bomb. Nor do they, at this time, want to go it alone. I have already posted articles and discussion about Iran wanting to join larger alliances with Russia, China, and others who in turn want to oppose the West.


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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh for Big Bang's sake! IF THEY WANT THE URANIUM CONVERTED FOR WHATEVER PEACEFUL SAKE THAT WOULD BE SOOOOO EASY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO EASY FOR A LONG TIME. THEY DON'T HAVE TO THREATEN, OR ACTUALLY ATTEMPT, TO GET THE BOMB IN ORDER TO GET PEACEFUL URANIUM CONVERSION. Geez . . . I mean holy accident . . . what's the mystery?

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.

Hey, you're the one who asked for a discussion on an alternative approach if a deal can't stop Iran from getting a bomb. You either keep falling back on the deal being some form of alternative approach to itself, or you just can't get yourself to say what an actual alternative approach would be. Just too horrible to say, I guess.

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.

I have specifically said several times that its the theocratic leaders (not the people) with whom the negotiations must ultimately be made. Khamenei will put the thumb up or down.

Is the military an autonomous segment of the population, or is it under the control of the theocrats? They certainly wouldn't want to get into a confrontation with the West if they don't have the bomb. Nor do they, at this time, want to go it alone. I have already posted articles and discussion about Iran wanting to join larger alliances with Russia, China, and others who in turn want to oppose the West.

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

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, he 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.

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.

[spence]

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...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Good to know that a perhaps is a smart move. But don't know how this is a response to what I said.

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.

Oh, so your concern that nobody discussing an alternate solution precludes you from discussing it because you have to wait for somebody else to discuss it.

The "one that they are opposing before they know what's in it" is an overarching generalization. There may be some who absolutely oppose it at this point, but mostly there is a fear from what has been reported that it may not provide the assurance it seeks. And those pesky congress people want to have their rightful input in the final agreement. Congress wants its input on the feasibility of any agreement.

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?

ISIS is practicing real Islam in many ways, not just what we consider atrocities. It is doing "good" for the Muslims who it considers are not apostate. Practicing real Islam has nearly unlimited methods to relate to non-Muslims. It is not necessary to always do jihad of the sword. Though the ultimate goal is the spread and total dominance of Islam, the path has many ways. Tolerance can be practiced, so long as it does not diminish Islam in relation to others. If accommodation to the kafir (infidels) is called for, do it, so long as it does not diminish the faith of the umma (the Muslim nation) or debase Islam in relation to the infidel. If deception or lying is required to prevent loss or shame, or to achieve some gain, in any relation with the infidel it is allowed (taqiyya). There is not so much a basic Islamic conflict between ISIS and Iran so much as a difference in style derived partly from the Shia/Sunni split. Sort of like the difference between Catholics and Protestants, but both still being Christian. And the difference is accentuated by the fact that one has an established and uncontested territorial power and the other is trying to acquire it. So the accommodation that Iran makes with the West doesn't mean that it does not want to see the destruction of the great Satan. And any collaborations with emerging markets don't necessarily have to always depend on western economy. The Iranians (the rulers) might be hoping that the emerging anti-western alliances such as SCO and BRICS will grow and eventually not only catch up, but supersede the western economy. Which, among other reasons, is probably why they want to join them. And, I assume, Iran is quite comfortable if it can fool the West into believing that economic or military relations are based on some mutual lasting accord. And it, I believe, would be ecstatic if the West believed whatever Iran would say and agree to in any negotiation.

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

Perhaps they are, and it is.

Interesting thing I found earlier but forgot to post.

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

This article isn't saying much in terms of present day problems with Islam. It talks about Christian violence in the past being more horrific than Islamic violence of the past. But it admits that biblical violence has achieved a "holy amnesia." That is, modern biblical interpreters conveniently forget or pay no attention or discount the violent passages. But Islam has not yet wholly achieved that holy amnesia. The article presents Jenkins postulation that Islam had achieved it for a while but recently has slid back to old ways. But the article also gives Bostum's narration that Jenkins's account is ridiculous. That the fundamentalism was never abandoned.

But there is a fundamental difference not noted in the article. When it points out Christian violence it does not point to that violence being promoted in actual Christian text, the words and actions of Jesus. On the other hand, Islamic violence is founded on actual Quranic texts and, especially the hadiths which were the words and actions of Mohammed. Which is probably why it is more difficult for Islam to get holy amnesia.

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

My point was that his message to the Iranian people didn't mean a whole lot. If Obama did nothing to influence the Iranian "Green Movement," the explanation is that nothing could have been done. And then to make some Alinsky type attempt to ridicule the idea that anything could have been done. On the other hand, Obama was able to interfere and attempt to influence outcomes in the "Arab Spring." Somehow that was doable. I guess because Obama did it.

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.

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

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

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