This is why obama will not do anything about iran

[EagleKeeper]

We did not have enough detailed info about the Tora Bora location to go in with an extraction team initially

Such a team could have been slaughtered due to lack of actionable Intel.

That area is rougher than the Rockies. It is not a little hill with a couple of caves.
Saturation bombing would have been required to suppress and destroy the area before sending in troops.

 

[Capt Caveman]

LOL - are you serious or just trolling here? I honestly can't tell.

I think he's just stupid.

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny how none of that bullshit fits with what people who were there say about it, people who didn't have to say anything-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...tastic-obama-credit-for-bin-laden-130150.html

 

[Texashiker]

Funny how none of that bullshit fits with what people who were there say about it, people who didn't have to say anything-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...tastic-obama-credit-for-bin-laden-130150.html

Would you talk bad about your boss?

Didn't the military courtmarshal some troops for talking bad about the president?

I think he's just stupid.

Go rescue some kittens or something.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would argue that not using force to stop nuclear proliferation is a means of supporting it.

So I am curious what that poll looks like. I think Americans are dumb enough to support nuclear proliferation - even to our worst enemies.

 

[berzerker60]

Could you imagine if, say, Pakistan and India had nukes? Or China? Or just any old country, like South Africa or Israel?
Oh wait, they all already do. The world still hasn't ended, we still haven't been hit with a dreaded suitcase nuke, life continues. Iran getting a nuke matters very little, except that we can't invade them whenever we feel like it, which is frankly probably a good thing. Of course, we still COULD invade Iran, since they won't have ICBMs or Trident-type submarine launchers, we'd just have to pay a toll in terms of troops.

 

[Jhhnn]

Would you talk bad about your boss?

Didn't the military courtmarshal some troops for talking bad about the president?

Go rescue some kittens or something.

McRaven rarely grants interviews, and he didn't have to grant that one. If he didn't like the way Obama handled it, he probably would have just stfu, been a good soldier.

Your posting of the breathless & trashy review of a scurrilous book is a lot less credible than McRaven, and you can take that to the bank.

Pfft.

 

[zinfamous]

An anonymous source written about in a book from an established hardcore right wing writer who's previous works include a serious discussion about the applicability of the tv show "24" to US foreign policy. Absolutely fucking ironclad.

:thumbsup:

Riveting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The ideal, it seems to me then, is to have such power and never ever use it inappropriately.

Yep, that is how it should always be. There is the moral obligation to use power only when necessary after other avenues have been exhausted. Due diligence must be used to determine the facts of the matter, not skewing intelligence to justify it's use, and determining that there is a real need to use military force. Then what is done ought to conform to a minimum of destruction necessary to achieve the goal. That last part is the "why" of having a vastly superior military force. There are options besides launching a full scale indiscriminate attack.

Right now Obama is doing precisely what he should do. Sometimes "Just don't do something, stand there" is the correct approach. Obviously that does not mean not keeping up on the situation nor ignoring intelligence gathering.

So OP, here's the question.

You are the President, the CIC.

1) What objectives do you wish to accomplish? Don't be vague.
2) How do you go about achieving them?
3) What will the consequences of your action be domestically and abroad if you succeed? What if you fail?
4) What happens internally to Iran?
5) What prevents a recurrence of the problem as you have defined it? What resources are you willing to commit for how long?


That's a few questions. Give answers and we'll look at them.

Whatever you do don't say "Hey I'm not the President, it's up to him" because that's specious. He's human and has all the real world constraints anyone, including you, would have.

Go.

 

[Incorruptible]

obama likes muslims better than Christians, this is truly insulting to Americans who work hard and pay taxes, He must change his ways

 

[zsdersw]

Ever since obama was elected, I have felt he favors mulsims and muslim nations over israel and christian nations.

Articles like this reinforce that feeling.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ims-explosive-new-book.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

What I fear, is that obama is going to let irans nuclear program advance so that iran can build nuclear weapons.

Yes, clearly, Obama favors Muslims because three missions to kill Osama were cancelled, because there are no good reasons to cancel any mission. /sarcasm

🙄

 

[Incorruptible]

Yes, clearly, Obama favors Muslims because three missions to kill Osama were cancelled, because there are no good reasons to cancel any mission. /sarcasm

🙄

obama favors muslism, he has mentioned this in his speeches

 

[zsdersw]

obama favors muslism, he has mentioned this in his speeches

Factually incorrect on every level.

 

[Incorruptible]

Factually incorrect on every level.

He stated he didn't want people insulting islam

 

[Pr0d1gy]

He stated he didn't want people insulting islam

That probably has something to do with that Freedom of Religion thing our country was founded on.




Just sayin....

 

[1prophet]

He stated he didn't want people insulting islam

He also stated he is for Gay marriage, about as far from Islam as one can get.

 

[Moonbeam]

George Bush was one of the greatest defenders of the Islamic faith in America. I have never been able to determine if it was a case of a stopped watch being right twice a day, or a case when his Christianity was actually real, or what the hell happened, but I deeply admired him for that stand.

 

[Jaskalas]

Could you imagine if, say, Pakistan and India had nukes? Or China? Or just any old country, like South Africa or Israel?
Oh wait, they all already do. The world still hasn't ended, we still haven't been hit with a dreaded suitcase nuke, life continues. Iran getting a nuke matters very little, except that we can't invade them whenever we feel like it, which is frankly probably a good thing. Of course, we still COULD invade Iran, since they won't have ICBMs or Trident-type submarine launchers, we'd just have to pay a toll in terms of troops.

The 'everyone should have nukes' argument is completely unreasonable, especially in a modern world that questions the ownership of guns. You HAVE to draw a line somewhere, the only question is when and where?

Who does not have permission to build nukes? Private citizens, small businesses, large corporations, your local state agency? You are already arguing in favor of rogue nations, perhaps the Palestinians should. They have a track record of not blowing themselves up... oh, wait.

There has to be a point where military force is used to stop nuclear proliferation. If not Iran, then who?

 

[Texashiker]

There has to be a point where military force is used to stop nuclear proliferation. If not Iran, then who?

That brings up a good point, who should decide what nation can have a nuke?

In the overall grand scheme of things, nuclear weapons are still in their infancy. What is going to happen 10, 20, 30,,,, 50 years from now?

Iran develops nuclear weapons, 20 years from now the government is overthrown "again",,, what happens to those weapons?

Lets say Rome had nuclear weapons. The government collapsed, who would make sure those weapons are secure 50, 100, 200 years later?

From time to time the news reports on someone buying land with a barn on it, only to find classic cars parked in the barn.

50 years from now Iran goes through a civil war and the nation is divided between the warlords. Who has control over the nuclear weapons?

One of the problems here is we are thinking short term. We have a small window to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Once that window is closed, it might be lost forever.

After the soviet union collapsed, the breakaway republics suddenly were in possession of nuclear weapons. I think most of the nations gave the weapons to Russia.

 

[alzan]

islam teaches that it's OK to lie and cheat the infidel and and any muslim that's not a true believer. So with that in mind..when has your obama ever told the truth??

I'm pretty sure that Jesus told his apostles to be as meek as sheep but as cunning as wolves.

Also is that teaching truly in the Quran or is it contained in one of the many haddiths?

When has any politician told the truth? "your obama" lulz

 

[Texashiker]

Also is that teaching truly in the Quran or is it contained in one of the many haddiths?

This might explain it for you,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

 

[alzan]

obama likes muslims better than Christians, this is truly insulting to Americans who work hard and pay taxes, He must change his ways

You already have two open "I hate Muslims" threads. Go showcase your Islamophobia in them.

 

[Incorruptible]

You already have two open "I hate Muslims" threads. Go showcase your Islamophobia in them.

I dont hate Muslims! I hate the radicals and extremists

 

[alzan]

This might explain it for you,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

From the page; "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

So the neutrality of the article is disputed. Reading the article further shows that it's not practiced by all Muslim sects.

Now go back to your fallout shelter and crouch behind your fortress constructed of canned goods and stroke your rifle.

 

[berzerker60]

obama likes muslims better than Christians, this is truly insulting to Americans who work hard and pay taxes, He must change his ways

Even if this was true there would be nothing wrong with it.

The 'everyone should have nukes' argument is completely unreasonable, especially in a modern world that questions the ownership of guns. You HAVE to draw a line somewhere, the only question is when and where?

Who does not have permission to build nukes? Private citizens, small businesses, large corporations, your local state agency? You are already arguing in favor of rogue nations, perhaps the Palestinians should. They have a track record of not blowing themselves up... oh, wait.

There has to be a point where military force is used to stop nuclear proliferation. If not Iran, then who?

What right does any nation have to tell another nation what it can and can't build? Only the 'right' of 'might makes right,' ie none, unless we're taking the UN as a legitimizing agency (which I'd be okay with actually, but not many conservatives would, and we'd both agree the UN is mostly toothless and easily ignored). Obviously individuals don't get to have whatever weapons that want since the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. Different countries are legal equals, though. Not everyone SHOULD have nukes, but I don't think every person I meet should have kids (or handguns) either, and I don't get to make that call.

Iran develops nuclear weapons, 20 years from now the government is overthrown "again",,, what happens to those weapons?

After the soviet union collapsed, the breakaway republics suddenly were in possession of nuclear weapons. I think most of the nations gave the weapons to Russia.

As you point out yourself, this has already happened and yet L.A. still hasn't been nuked, so either Jack Bauer is better in real life than he is even on 24, or people are prone to a little paranoia.

How about this for a compromise: We continue sanctions and covert attacks (like Stuxnix), but instead of spending trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and any last scraps of international legitimacy invading Iran, we spend half that money building up border security and the other half on schools?