Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Why Obama Is Wrong

Oh, you imagine that the United States still has a military, do you?

How is the US going to pay to replace all the matériel it has squandered in Iraq? You had better get used to the fact that the US is broke.
______________

Excellent post, Lord S! I like your style. And lest there be any mistaken impression, I do agree with our colleague Reality Bytes that the likelihood of a conflagration with Iran would be greatly enhanced by a McCain-Palin victory in November. Having said that, let me proceed to the points you raise in your reply.

In your reference to George W. Bush &q...ng that he would militarily target Iran, we find the conditions for such targeting to be:
I will return to this condition later.

As for Sen. McCain's "Barbara Ann" moment, I should think you and every other politically savvy person would be well aware by now that he was making a joke in order to clarify a question posed by a guest at a town hall meeting. He did not state "categorically" that he would militarily target Iran under ANY circumstances. He was not giving a serious speech at a prestigious gathering of top US and foreign dignitaries at the annual meeting of one of the most powerful political organizations in the world.

And this differs how from the following statement?

“I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

I would suggest the primary difference between these two statements is that in the former, the speaker is calling upon the world to take whatever action is necessary, whereas in the latter, the speaker is promising to act unilaterally.

If you carefully re-read my post, Lord S, you will see that I never suggested there was any "sure sign" that that Mr. Obama would attack Iran. In fact, I asked rhetorically what were the conditions that Obama laid out in his speech that would, according to his stated policy, necessitate an attack. As you correctly point out, he specified a long list of diplomatic actions.

But what if those actions failed? Did Mr. Obama promise to wait until Iran launched a nuclear attack before retaliating, as Mr. Bush did in your referenced "categorical" statement? No, he did not. Did Mr. Obama even suggest that he would wait until after Iran had obtained a nuclear weapon before abandoning diplomatic efforts? No again. He said that Iran must not be "allowed" to develop a weapon in the first place. Who did he suggest should prevent Iran from doing this? And what options would he stop short of exercising in order to prevent it?

Perhaps they might. But they would be wrong. We have already "lifted a finger" - we sold the Israelis the bombs they need to penetrate iran's underground facilities.

How has Israel demonstrated that it is our ally? And if they were, wouldn't it make more sense to pressure our "ally" to calm down the bellicose rhetoric and stop persecuting the 5 million people it holds in captivity, thus removing the principle casus belli for Iran's antagonism towards the Zionist regime?

With regard to McCain's militarism, versus the allegation that Obama would take the same tack: I have yet to find, and I have looked, any instance where McCain had objected to the use of military force by the United States when it was a Republican-led operation. The only time I have found he has ever complained is when it was politically convenient to do so (i.e., when Bill Clinton was President). In Somalia he was for it - until Clinton was elected. THE U.S. AND U.N. IN SOMALIA - adm, 1993. He approved of Grenada and Panama, but not Haiti, and he didn't think Clinton was aggressive enough in Kosovo. McCain: Life shaped judgment on use of force USA Today.

I think, pretty clearly, the same cannot be said of Senator Obama, and indeed the criticism of him usually comes from the other side. What we have, instead, is a mindset, by Mr. Lind and others, that either "every politician is the same," or more commonly, that "anything Senator Obama does is wrong," although it would be right if "another candidate" did the same thing. These are political, not analytical, judgments, and therefore there is not basis for distinction. Obviously, there is, but once one's mind is made up, any fact that is inconsistent with the conclusion is either ignored or dismissed. That, I think, is disingenuous and not reasoned debate.

Israel is our ally when its in their interest to be our ally, which is understandable if you're an Israeli. However, I believe as an American that the Israelis will have to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians as well as their neighbors to at least stabilize the region in an attempt to eventually bring peace to the region. I pray- as many others- that the USA does all it can in a good faith and as a neutral party to bring peace to the region.

Joe

How is that allegation germane to this discussion?

Please explain your claim in light of the opening sentence of Mr. Lind's essay.

The USA a nuetral party?
You gotta be kidding, right?

The only reason Israel exists is because of the billions in military aid the US provides to Israel along with the assurances to all of it's neighbors that any attack on Israel will be met with all of the force of the United States.

This is paramount to this discussion because Obama has succumbed to the power of AIPAC despite the fact that he is well aware that much of Israel's human rights abuses and UN violations could not occur if the US demanded it.

I suppose the Obama supporters are going to claim this is yet another area where he has to say these things, but once he gets in office he is going to change ME policy to reflect much more accountability from the Israeli government.

But it is a sad statement about our political system and it's citizens to say that the only way a reasonable person with good intentions can get elected is to lie about what they think.

Running down the line of your statements Roger, I don't see a single one I disagree with. As I've said elsewhere the candidates are not as different as I would like for them to be.

For the record, I understand your and others feelings about the hard reality we face as it pertains to our choices come November.

I know that many votes for Obama will not be because people truly support his positions, but rather because a McCain presidency is looking more and more like something that could even be worse than what we suffered through the last 8 years.

I have struggled for a long time with whether my personal approach to this problem is elitest or selfish or detrimental to the poor and to women and to gays and to social services. It would not be the first time I have been accused of not really understanding the consequences of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

But I do not have a wish for anarchy or violent revolution, nor do I cheer for the fall of civilization or the fall of the United States as I have also been accused of.

What I do know is this.

This two wings of our one party system mirror each other on the things that matter most. Individuals that rise within those parties either tow the line, or they are excommunicated, demeaned and dimished, ridiculed, and then finally shamed and removed from power.

Furthermore, I think Reverend Wright hit the nail on the head when he was questioned about why Obama had "turned on him" when he said that is what politicians have to do.

But what most Americans don't really get is that the president of the United States has very little power to push against the man behind the curtain. If he does this too hard, there are forces that will make sure he stops.

Ask JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, or a host of others who dared actually threaten the system and who quickly learned that if you go to far, they will end you.

There is a part of me that has the same hope and the same rationalizations about just how bad a McCain presidency would be and how I just can not afford to vote my conscience this time.

But you know what.
There will always be a "this time".
I have heard it every 4 years since I was a young man and I am a pretty old dude today.

There will never be a good time to vote your conscience in this perverted broken system.

If you agree with that, then you will understand why I can't rationalize it "one more time".

Peace!~

Roger,

I wrote: "...that the USA does all it can in a good faith and as a neutral party to bring peace to the region." I agree with you that the USA is not neutral in the ME. Also, please don't take stereoman's insistence that you stick to the facts and don't wonder off into self-righteous indignation, which is understandable. CHB Reader Rant is the most reasonable, rational, and intelligent message board that I've encountered, which I suspect is why you're posting here.

Joe

Thanks Joe!

I knew what you meant, I just got a little antsy when I saw the words "nuetral party" in a discussion about the US and Israel.

For the record, I truly enjoy your contributions and always look forward to your thoughts on the issues.