# Obama and Iran: The Man Who Didn't Bluff



## Big Don (Mar 11, 2012)

Obama and Iran: The Man Who Didn't Bluff
Doug Ross EXCERPT:
Little more than a week ago, President Obama again addressed growing concerns that Iran's Mullahs were preparing nuclear weapons for regional attacks. He insisted that more time be given for diplomacy, noting that, "as president of the United States, I don't bluff."

Yet, on May 18, 2009, President Obama was asked about Iran and any deadlines for his policy of engagement. He responded: You know, I dont want to set an artificial deadline ... We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction.

On September 15, 2009, a deadline issued by President Obama for Iran to come to the nuclear negotiating table was ignored by Iran's Mullahs.

On October 11, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "The international community will not wait indefinitely for evidence that Iran is willing to live up to its international commitments."

On October 23, 2009, an Obama-backed UN deadline for Iran to begin drawing down its nuclear stockpile was ignored by Iran's Mullahs.

On November 29, 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "Time is running out for Iran to address the international communitys growing concerns about its nuclear program."

On December 31, 2009, President Obama's deadline for Iran to respond to his diplomatic outreach was ignored by Iran's Mullahs.

On January 31, 2010, President Obama's new deadline of the end of the month was ignored by Iran's Mullahs.
END EXCERPT
Gee, this reminds me of all the UN resolutions before the invasion of Iraq...


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 11, 2012)

A couple of things here.  What would you do that he is not doing?  Keep in mind the repurcussions of any use of force here.  Second, remember that many of the countries against the invasion of Iraq were right.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> A couple of things here.  What would you do that he is not doing?  Keep in mind the repurcussions of any use of force here.  Second, remember that many of the countries against the invasion of Iraq were right.



Its all just a series of steps that will lead us to another immoral war we can't afford. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> A couple of things here.  What would you do that he is not doing?  Keep in mind the repurcussions of any use of force here.  Second, remember that many of the countries against the invasion of Iraq were right.



Bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and destroy them.  Period.  Nothing else.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 11, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Its all just a series of steps that will lead us to another immoral war we can't afford.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


Yeah, because protecting our allies and interests is clearly immoral.

I'm all for diplomacy, but, when one party (Iran for the morons out there) has repeatedly stated it's wish to wipe Israel, (our ally) off the map, has routinely supported international terrorism for decades, and ignores numerous pleas from many nations practically begging them not to develop nuclear weapons...
That ought to be a subtle hint that diplomacy isn't going to work.
BTW, if your next door neighbor kept talking about how he wanted to wipe out your whole family, how comfortable would you be with his new rocketry hobby?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2012)

Israel is perfectly able of defending itself against a nuclear armed Iran. If we went to war, it would be hugely expensive and uneeded...and our children will foot the bill for it and all of the wrecked lives that come home.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Mar 11, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Israel is perfectly able of defending itself against a nuclear armed Iran. If we went to war, it would be hugely expensive and uneeded...and our children will foot the bill for it and all of the wrecked lives that come home.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


So, you've emailed the President urging him to stop counseling restraint to Israel?
I have, every year since I got email.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 12, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Israel is perfectly able of defending itself against a nuclear armed Iran. If we went to war, it would be hugely expensive and uneeded...and our children will foot the bill for it and all of the wrecked lives that come home.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk



Must be easy to put my family and friends in danger of being destoyed, all the way from Hawaii. While Israel is capable of defending herself, the cost of engulfing the region in an all out shooting war would be catastrophic for Israel. I, for one, don't want to see half of the Jews in the world in that position ever again.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Israel is perfectly able of defending itself against a nuclear armed Iran. If we went to war, it would be hugely expensive and uneeded...and our children will foot the bill for it and all of the wrecked lives that come home.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk



Not go to war.  Bomb their nuclear sites.  And nothing else.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 12, 2012)

The use of force shuts down any efforts of diplomacy.  Perhaps force may need to be used here, but it should be a last resort.  We are not to that point yet.  Also, any use of force in the area would have some very negative repurcussions.  Iran is almost completely alone.  However, if we use force, other countries will come to her aid.  Can you imagine more coutries using the same tactics as Iran?  Like Iran by herself isn't enough of a headache.  If you think gas prices are high now, imagine what they would be if we start bombing Iran.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> We are not to that point yet.



When will we be?  When Iran finishes moving all their nuclear technology to hidden, buried, and well-dispersed sites?  When they product 20% enriched uranium?  When they actually do a test detonation?  When?

While there is clearly a continuum of choice here, and some would make the decision to move militarily far earlier than others, it is often perceived by many that the 'give sanctions a chance to work' boys are hand-wringers who would NEVER agree that it was time to act.  For many, we believe that 'that point' will never be reached for some who just keep moving the redline back to avoid having to do anything.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 12, 2012)

Didn't you learn that you can't afford to fight wars from Afghanistan, Iraq and a generation earlier Vietnam? Geez will you warmongers ever learn?


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 12, 2012)

i dont think it should be up to us.  It should be Israel that decides when and how thay are the ones iran will use the bombs on.  When they attack we should support them give them the tooks needed and help if they call for it.  Its easy for obama to say wait wait when he knows there is no way iran would send a missle to washington much different threat level sitting in israel.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Didn't you learn that you can't afford to fight wars from Afghanistan, Iraq and a generation earlier Vietnam? Geez will you warmongers ever learn?



Not fight war.  Drop bombs on nuclear facilities.  Nothing else.  I've said that like three times now.  Why is that so difficult to comprehend?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 12, 2012)

Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened, and deep under mountains-the best Israel could do is bury the entrances....we have the capability of destroying the ones that we know about, and will for some time to come, but that isn't enough to keep Iran from developing a weapon-those facilities really *are* likely just the ones that we know about, and real weapons development is knowledge based- we can only try to limit their production of SNM, not their weapons development, which is something we've known about since the early to mid nineties, based on the direction that some of their academic papers took. Since then, they've had nuclear scientists assassinated, and had their facilities control systems penetrated with a virus by _someone_

"Drop bombs now" is a possible temporary solution, not a permanent one-it will, ultimately, only delay them from attaining their goal. The best bet really is to make it something the regime doesn't want (and it's not clear that nuclear ambition is shared by the religious authorities) and so doesn't try to attain. As it is,they seem to be so intent upon this, my thought is that if we bomb them, they'll just resume their program again-deeper underground and even more in secret-they have most of the means to do so. So, instead of being confronted by a nuclear-armed Iran next year, we'lll be confronted by them in 2020 or so, but nuclear-armed they will be, unless we can change the regime's mind, or Iran's regime is changed.

By all means, though,go ahead: bomb them now, and bomb them often.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 12, 2012)

Bill, dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear research facilities IS an act of war.  Doing so would lead Iran to do something stupid, like try to shut down the straight of Hormuz.  Cutting off oil flow like that would lead to more shooting to open it back up.  Also keep in mind how many terrorist Iran has been funding.  Start a shooting war with Iran and she will call in her markers with those organizations, creating even more chaos in the region. 

There absoluutely is a point where we, or Israel with our help, uses force to retard thier research and development.  However, I don't believe we are to that point yet.  I do think that intel has been very good in regards to where Iran is at in thier research, so if we have to shoot, it won't be out of ignorance.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 12, 2012)

How do you change their minds?  The sanctions dont effect its leaders esp when colleges in the US invite  irans leaders to come here and give speaches.  He knows we are not serious about stopping him and sadly now i believe israel also knows we dont have their back when it goes down.



elder999 said:


> Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened, and deep under mountains-the best Israel could do is bury the entrances....we have the capability of destroying the ones that we know about, and will for some time to come, but that isn't enough to keep Iran from developing a weapon-those facilities really *are* likely just the ones that we know about, and real weapons development is knowledge based- we can only try to limit their production of SNM, not their weapons development, which is something we've known about since the early to mid nineties, based on the direction that some of their academic papers took. Since then, they've had nuclear scientists assassinated, and had their facilities control systems penetrated with a virus by _someone_
> 
> "Drop bombs now" is a possible temporary solution, not a permanent one-it will, ultimately, only delay them from attaining their goal. The best bet really is to make it something the regime doesn't want (and it's not clear that nuclear ambition is shared by the religious authorities) and so doesn't try to attain. As it is,they seem to be so intent upon this, my thought is that if we bomb them, they'll just resume their program again-deeper underground and even more in secret-they have most of the means to do so. So, instead of being confronted by a nuclear-armed Iran next year, we'lll be confronted by them in 2020 or so, but nuclear-armed they will be, unless we can change the regime's mind, or Iran's regime is changed.
> 
> By all means, though,go ahead: bomb them now, and bomb them often.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Bill, dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear research facilities IS an act of war.  Doing so would lead Iran to do something stupid, like try to shut down the straight of Hormuz.  Cutting off oil flow like that would lead to more shooting to open it back up.  Also keep in mind how many terrorist Iran has been funding.  Start a shooting war with Iran and she will call in her markers with those organizations, creating even more chaos in the region.



Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran won't cause chaos?  Hmmm.  When I consider the alternative, I opt for plan A.



> There absoluutely is a point where we, or Israel with our help, uses force to retard thier research and development.  However, I don't believe we are to that point yet.  I do think that intel has been very good in regards to where Iran is at in thier research, so if we have to shoot, it won't be out of ignorance.



Well, you say there is a point, but in practice, I find that most anti-war people never agree that 'the point' has been reached.  They'll just keep retreating forever until someone else finally makes the decision, then criticize that person or group.  Oh, there's 'a point' alright; it's just that it's imaginary and we'll never get to it.
l


----------



## elder999 (Mar 12, 2012)

WC_lun said:
			
		

> Bill, dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear research facilities IS an act of war.  Doing so would lead Iran to do something stupid, like try to shut down the straight of Hormuz.  Cutting off oil flow like that would lead to more shooting to open it back up.  Also keep in mind how many terrorist Iran has been funding.  Start a shooting war with Iran and she will call in her markers with those organizations, creating even more chaos in the region.




Iran, as I've pointed out elsewhere, tried to block the Straits of Hormuz several times during its war with Iraq. They were not successful-it is largely an empty threat.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 12, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> How do you change their minds?  The sanctions dont effect its leaders esp when colleges in the US invite  irans leaders to come here and give speaches.  He knows we are not serious about stopping him and sadly now i believe israel also knows we dont have their back when it goes down.


Sanctions do NOT work against Iran, we should have learned this as a nation in 79 with Jimmy Carter.


----------



## billc (Mar 12, 2012)

As a good opening gesture, to show we mean them no harm, and to alleviate all of their fears, why don't we just give them all of our nuclear weapons.  They won't need to build their own then, we will have disarmed, the way so many want us to over here, and they can just develop nuclear power for energy.  Everything will be just great then.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 13, 2012)

I think that that's foolhardy talk at the best! Billchihak. Who knows what Iran would do with a new fully operational arsenal of nuclear armament. I think you can say goodbye to Israel for a start! No a much better idea is to continue down the route of negotiations. There is no reason to believe that the Muslims of the middle East are endemic liars, and when they say that they are not building a nuclear weapons capacity, I think it may be worth giving them the benefit of the doubt for a change. Just because you perchance would lie about nuclear capacities, does not mean that they will. They are after all Muslims, and does it not say in the Quran thou shall not lie? Food for thought.


----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2012)

You arent supposed to lie to muslims...everybody else, you can lie to all day long.  You can also lie to further the cause of spreading or defending Islam.  If I am incorrect on this, please let me know.  The same goes for religion of peace, it is a religion of peace for muslims...everybody else better watch out...


You do realize that Iran is one of the biggest exporters of terrorism around the world?  They provide weapons, money and training to terrorists?  That might be some of the reason people are reluctant to "take their word," on the issue of nuclear weapons...


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 13, 2012)

I don't think we should take thier word for anything.  I also don't think it is a situation where we shoot now or they have a nuke.  If it was I'd be all in for taking out thier ability to do so.  If the information that has been released by our government, Israel's government, and the media is at all accurate, we have some time.  Warfare without the need just does not set right with me.  Destroying property and lives in Iran is war.  Let us not do that until/unless absolutely neccesary.


----------



## 72ronin (Mar 19, 2012)

Isnt Russia the one to help Iran gain Nuclear energy, did Putin back out or something, i didnt think so?
If Russia provides Iran the means for Nuclear energy, are you guys seriously happy with the civilian losses (and longterm health effects) that will occur due to damaging Nuclear energy facilities?

India, Pakistan etc all have Nuclear weapons, Pakistan also has a bad rep for harbouring etc terrorists does it not?

Has it crossed anyones mind yet that Iraq couldnt put a dent in Iran when it attacked, Iran is absolutely no pushover. Let alone the increasing partnership it has with Russia.
Iran already has the potential arms to absolutely level Israel, right now, without nuclear. How many Nukes Israel got? 
The evidence, if that means anything, is that Iran desires Nuclear energy. Thats why Putin has talked about giving it to them.
Besides, if you were Iran, why would you launch against Israel absolutely ensuring the total destruction of your country and people possibly even being wiped from the face of the earth forever? You may aswell commit suicide right now, its totaly illogical. Absolute rubbish.

Is the U.S.S Liberty forgotten that easily by Americans? What its been written in the history books as a terrible mix up has it pfff
If one wants to play world watchdog then they better pop israel on their list of things to do, apparently they are breaking International law/human rights as we speak, no? oh well, get back to following the propaganda machine but one thing, at least make sure you are following your own countries propaganda/intelligence this time..


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 19, 2012)

72ronin said:


> Has it crossed anyones mind yet that Iraq couldnt put a dent in Iran when it attacked, Iran is absolutely no pushover.



A) Iraq was a pushover, and so is Iran compared to US military.  We defeated the Iraqi *military* in a matter of days.
B) In any case, I don't propose invading Iran or fighting their military.  Just bombing the crap out of their nuclear installations.



> Let alone the increasing partnership it has with Russia.



Russia is not going to defend Iran militarily if we bomb it.



> Iran already has the potential arms to absolutely level Israel, right now, without nuclear.



Ah, no.  Not even close.



> How many Nukes Israel got?



No one will say.  Suffice to say they are acknowledged by most to be a nuclear-armed nation.



> The evidence, if that means anything, is that Iran desires Nuclear energy.



No, that's not what the evidence shows.  Read Elder's response in this thread; he's an expert on such matters.  He may disagree that Iran is currently building a nuclear device, but even he says what they are doing is, if intended only for peaceful nuclear energy production, a very odd way to go about it.



> Thats why Putin has talked about giving it to them.



Putin is a criminal mobster.



> Besides, if you were Iran, why would you launch against Israel absolutely ensuring the total destruction of your country and people possibly even being wiped from the face of the earth forever? You may aswell commit suicide right now, its totaly illogical. Absolute rubbish.



Religion makes people do stupid things, like blow themselves up in planes to hurt America.  Not rubbish at all.  And they've repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.  So it's not rubbish.



> Is the U.S.S Liberty forgotten that easily by Americans? What its been written in the history books as a terrible mix up has it pfff
> If one wants to play world watchdog then they better pop israel on their list of things to do, apparently they are breaking International law/human rights as we speak, no? oh well, get back to following the propaganda machine but one thing, at least make sure you are following your own countries propaganda/intelligence this time..



Regardless of your opinion on Israel, you can be certain that the US will not abandon it, and Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons.  Sorry if that chafes your shorts, but that's life.


----------



## 72ronin (Mar 20, 2012)

You mean to say that Iran will not obtain Nuclear "energy", and that many civilians will die and generations will suffer the effects of radiation, because we were fed some crap about the whole country being suicidal and watering at the mouth to Nuke Israel. 

Who else has had their Nuclear energy facilities hopes bombed over there? Egypt or was it Libya?
So all of a sudden all these countries went nuts did they, all of them want to level israel now do they. Rubbish.
Any one of them could have waged biological warfare whenever they wanted to against their supposed enemy, and there is not a damn thing anyone could have done about it, let alone be able to pinpoint its origin. So religious fanatacism, considering its implication, is not on the table.

You believe so far that, Iran states it wants to level Israel. Next, it announces it is moving to go Nuclear energy (and that which it apparently implies, weapons). 
So you basicaly think Iran is tired of running its own country, peoples and culture etc and wishes to basicaly commit suicide.. See anything wrong with that picture?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2012)

72ronin said:


> You mean to say that Iran will not obtain Nuclear "energy", and that many civilians will die and generations will suffer the effects of radiation, because we were fed some crap about the whole country being suicidal and watering at the mouth to Nuke Israel.



No, I meant what I said.



> Who else has had their Nuclear energy facilities hopes bombed over there? Egypt or was it Libya?



Syria and Iraq, as far as I know.  Both bombed by Israel, presumably.



> So all of a sudden all these countries went nuts did they, all of them want to level israel now do they. Rubbish.
> Any one of them could have waged biological warfare whenever they wanted to against their supposed enemy, and there is not a damn thing anyone could have done about it, let alone be able to pinpoint its origin. So religious fanatacism, considering its implication, is not on the table.



A convenient dismissal, but it's not true.  Religious fanaticism is always on the table.  Biological warfare will not give Iran what it wants, which is the cooperation of all Islamic states against a common foe.



> You believe so far that, Iran states it wants to level Israel. Next, it announces it is moving to go Nuclear energy (and that which it apparently implies, weapons).



As noted by people who actually understand such things, the manner in which Iran is going about nuclear enrichment is far more conducive to creating weapons than nuclear power.  Likewise, Iran has been offered free nuclear reactors for power built for them in Iran by Western nations, if they will forgo their own nuclear research, which has been refused.  The obvious conclusion is it not the electricity they are after.



> So you basicaly think Iran is tired of running its own country, peoples and culture etc and wishes to basicaly commit suicide.. See anything wrong with that picture?



No, I do not think Iran is suicidal.  I think Iran is nearly isolated in the Muslim world of the Middle East.  They have few friends, but they'd like to have more.  To that end, if they can provoke a war with Israel, especially if they can be seen in the defensive mode instead of offensive, they hope that other Islamic nations will come to their aid, as they share a common foe, Israel.  That is what I believe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A) Iraq was a pushover, and so is Iran compared to US military.  We defeated the Iraqi *military* in a matter of days.



To be fair, the US prepped the way with a highway of dollars.  We paid Revolutionary Guard officers to stand down and stay home.  It wasn't a real test of arms between the two armies.  I'm not saying that the US wouldn't have prevailed, it would have been a lot harder if the Iraqi military had remained loyal to Saddam.

I'm not so sure the same thing is going to happen in Iran.  It seems that the harder we push, the more people reflexively support the regime.



Bill Mattocks said:


> B) In any case, I don't propose invading Iran or fighting their military.  Just bombing the crap out of their nuclear installations.



That's going to lead to regime change and I believe *that *is the ultimate goal anyway.  Bombing the nuclear installations opens the door for further escalation into the real policy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> To be fair, the US prepped the way with a highway of dollars.  We paid Revolutionary Guard officers to stand down and stay home.  It wasn't a real test of arms between the two armies.  I'm not saying that the US wouldn't have prevailed, it would have been a lot harder if the Iraqi military had remained loyal to Saddam.



Ah, no.  There is no military in the Middle East save Israel that could even challenge us for more than a couple days militarily, and Israel could not stand against us either (but unlike most other nations, if they had to, they'd fight to the last man).



> I'm not so sure the same thing is going to happen in Iran.  It seems that the harder we push, the more people reflexively support the regime.



Again, I am not proposing an invasion.



> That's going to lead to regime change and I believe *that *is the ultimate goal anyway.  Bombing the nuclear installations opens the door for further escalation into the real policy.



All *I* care about is that Iran not have nuclear weapons.  The rest means nothing to me at all.  If that goal is accomplished, I don't care who runs their local ********.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2012)

As you so eloquently put to me, Bill.  It doesn't matter so much what we want to support.  It matters what our leaders are planning.  I see regime change on the agenda with removing their nuclear options as the opening act.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> As you so eloquently put to me, Bill.  It doesn't matter so much what we want to support.  It matters what our leaders are planning.  I see regime change on the agenda with removing their nuclear options as the opening act.



Eh, I guess it's possible.  I just don't think many people give two craps what Iran gets up to or who runs their toilet of a country.  We had plenty of provocation to mess with them when we were in Iraq; they were training and arming insurgents; Americans died at the hands of Iranian military weapons given to terrorists.  That was a known fact, no BS, no posturing, no games.  We ignored it and pretended not to notice.  So no, I don't think we have ulterior motives in Iran.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2012)

Cheney tried to get us into war with Iran in 2006, even going so far as to paint some patrol boats and attack our own people. The Joint Chiefs said no, because they could retaliate on our troops in Iraq. Now that we have apparently finished business there, it looks to be a possibility again.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Cheney tried to get us into war with Iran in 2006, even going so far as to paint some patrol boats and attack our own people. The Joint Chiefs said no, because they could retaliate on our troops in Iraq. Now that we have apparently finished business there, it looks to be a possibility again.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk



Not on the planet I live on.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not on the planet I live on.



A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/07/31/26940/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/?mobile=nc



> In Hersh&#8217;s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The &#8220;meeting took place in *Darth Vader's* office. &#8216;The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,&#8217;&#8221; according to one of Hersh&#8217;s sources.
> 
> 
> During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically  about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh  explained that, during the meeting in *Vader&#8217;s* office, an idea was  considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian  speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran  war, was ultimately rejected:



Boldface emphasis mine...


----------

