Okay, then... let me give this a shot Steve. But in order to do this I'll need to take this one step at a time.
Issue #1:Let me ask you in return about this one:
the ONLY people who have come out and categorically stated that they would militarily target Iran without question are:
George Bush and John McCain.
Sources please?
Okay, since you were kind enough to ask:
Bush defends World War III comments on Iran McCain's now famous 'Bomb Iran' quote Although I would have to say, for Bush you could just reference his speech in front of the Israeli Knesset this year when he said:
“Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” Now I don't know about you, but when Bush lays out the problem in this fashion, it is too reminiscent of the whole pre-Iraq war argument, which was essentially specious and lacking any internal logic. For in Bush's worldview, what I have quoted above
would result in continuing military strikes without question. Would you disagree???
And for McCain, since most of the Administration's operatives are desperately trying to get McCain elected no matter what, I would submit that McCain would do it just to make himself look strong to the American public. Not that it would work, but hey, since it worked for George Bush in Iraq....
Issue #2:Looking further, we come to this:
That's the point of the discussion, I believe - to see whether Mr. Lind's claims have any merit. My earlier post was intended to help the discussion get going after the initial dismissive remark by Moderator Hoskins. Your post seems largely dismissive as well, but at least you are willing to go in the right direction - to look again at what Sen. Obama said at the AIPAC Convention.
Not that I meant to be dismissive; it's just that Lind's claims (for me at least) don't hold any merit at all... Not only is he
wrong about Obama's stance, he seems more than just a bit delusional. I mean, how do we go from Obama's speech at AIPAC where he says:
"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." AND
"Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel." all the way to Lind's histrionics when he claims:
As I have said repeatedly and will keep on saying, an attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we have in Iraq. It could set the region on fire, from Afghanistan to the Nile. It could create an oil crisis with severe economic consequences at a time when the world economy is tottering. It is, in short, madness. But it is also what Obama promised AIPAC.
Issue #3:While it is true, as you say, that Mr. Obama promises to undertake a long series of diplomatic maneuvers prior to using military force against Iran, he does nevertheless promise to use military force against Iran, just as Mr. Lind states. In what event does he promise to use military force? In the event that Iran attacks the US or US interests? No. In the event that Iran attacks an ally of the US? No. In the event that Iran poses an imminent threat to the US or its allies?
Ah, there's the rub. In his speech, Mr. Obama states that he will attack Iran if it is the only means remaining to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. This seems far from "the opposite" of attacking Iran, to my mind.
Good sir, I would implore you to read the text of Obama's speech more carefully...
How did you figure that Obama will attack Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons? He surely didn't say that in his speech. Rather, when he said:
"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." he follows that up with at least five more paragraphs
detailing the various political and economic options available to us short of military force. How is that a sure sign that he's going to attack Iran?? Frankly, it isn't. So I would strongly recommend that you delineate how the text of Obama's AIPAC speech
absolutely proves what you claim about Obama attacking Iran. If you can't prove it or would suggest that it is somehow implicit or implied, then you need to enlighten the rest of us as to how you made that leap of faith...
And finally, Issue #4: Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but that seems to very closely resemble the reasoning employed to justify using military force against Iraq in 2003 - in other words, the Bush Doctrine. Please describe to me how that constitutes "just the opposite" of attacking Iran.
Now for this one, I would submit that you go back and look at what you yourself wrote. If I remember correctly, you said:
In what event does he promise to use military force? In the event that Iran attacks the US or US interests? No. In the event that Iran attacks an ally of the US? No. In the event that Iran poses an imminent threat to the US or its allies?
Ah, there's the rub. In his speech, Mr. Obama states that he will attack Iran if it is the only means remaining to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
I don't think the text of the speech bears out your conclusion. As a matter of fact, I think that the speech supports more the first two options that you dismissed rather than
just attacking Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. Heck, if that were the case the Administration would probably have bombed them several years ago (sorry, couldn't resist...
).
Obama also explicitly states that:
"Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security." Let's remember, this is not the current Administration we're talking about here. He's already laid out a laundry list before relations with the Iranians come to blows, so let's at least see if he'll stick to his guns, unlike some other leaders and candidates out there..
Besides, anyone worth his salt in the realm of foreign affairs would probably tell you that we don't need to lift a finger to attack Iran's nuclear facilities- the Israelis will do that themselves. I'm sure at this point the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) have already planned another attack down to the minutiae, and are simply waiting for the right time. It isn't always up to us to make all the big decisions- sometimes we just have to stand by an ally in a moment of crisis...
And one more thing... And one more thing. Please remember, this discussion is about Mr. Obama's foreign policy, not about that of Sen. McCain, or the current White House occupant.
Yeah, I kinda figured that's what this topic was about, yet I don't believe that you can merely say that without examining the other relevant views out there, whether they're Obama's or his opponents. Life doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither should our discussions of relevant topics be limited to mindlessly bashing a candidate's stance
without careful perusal of the candidate's own words. Besides, from what I've seen here so far, that's what the order of the day is on this topic (until someone proves me wrong, of course)...
