Obama warns Israel against Iran Strike, Cancels Joint Military Exercises
juancole.com/2012/01/obama-warns-israel-again...
juancole.comPosted Jan 16, 2012, 8:49 PM UTC
8343
juancole.comBut all the r/politics crowd told me that Obama is a puppet for Israel and a warmonger. You're telling me now that this isn't true? What ever am I to make of this?
5
America gets pulled into a lot of bonehead decisions thanks to the Israeli lobby, the American evangelical contingent, and Israel's strategic/perceived strategic worth.
Alas, Obama got called out this last year for not fellating Israel with enough enthusiasm. AIPAC will probably crucify him for this decision too.
3
Not during an election year. Let see how it plays out if he is re-elected
1
What do you mean? An election year is one of the most popular times for a president to enter a war because people re-elect wartime presidents. Not to mention how rebuffing Israel is a risky play with the American jewish vote.
Let see how it plays out if he is re-elected
I agree, that part of it will be interesting to see.
4
Funny isn't it that all the conspiracy theories about how the Iran war is imminent and how 'certain candidates are opposed to it/only way to prevent it' made it to the front page but news like this is somewhere so far below and getting voted down furiously.
1
[deleted]
2
Somebody has to stop Netanyahu.
Friends don't let alleged friends start wars over manufactured existential threats!
2
I wish we'd just separate ourselves from Israel policy-wise altogether. No telling them who they can and cannot strike, but no Israel telling us to do a military strike for them. We are two independent, sovereign nations. Israel can wage its own wars and we can wage ours. And stop flying our damned politicians over there and using agents like Joseph Lieberman over here, too, Israel.
1
Who is the author? Is this a credible source? proof?
0
It's what they say in official media here in Europe too, also in the heavier political analyses, so it appears to be the general opinion that Obama is less than enthused by a conflict with Iran.
After two lost wars against lesser adversaries in the last decade it's kind of understandable.
6
Considering the United States overthrew two governments and instilled two new ones, I would say the wars were won.
Also, I think less than 6,000 US soldiers died while some people say there were millions of casualties on the Afghani and Iraqi side. but no, you're right.... the US "lost"
5
Boom. Good points.
2
Are you really calling Iraq a victory? Are you Donald Rumsfeld?
1
Are you saying Iraq won the war? The US got what they wanted. They overthrew the government, replaced it, and got their oil. I don't understand how you can say they lost.
1
IS the definition of victory 'more of their civilians died than our soldiers'?
1
If anyone wants to put it in binary terms and has to declare a victor, I do not see how anyone can say Saddam Hussein's Iraq defeated the United States.
We captured him. He was executed. A new US backed government is installed. We got their oil now. They had casualties in the millions.
We defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, installed a new US backed government and killed many of their leaders. The casualty numbers are also similar to Iraq.
But no, please, tell me how Iraq and Afghanistan defeated the United States after having millions of their people killed and their governments overthrown and leaders executed.
1
You people are simply ridiculous - no end of bad excuses.
Achievements of the wars:
In Iraq:
-
Remove Saddam's WMDs????
-
Remove one of the most important obstacles to Iran's dominance in the region. Check!
-
As one woman from Baghdad expressed it on BBC: "Before we had one Saddam and a certain level of security, now we have hundreds small Saddams and no security."
In Afganistan:
-
Removed Taleban from power. Check!
-
Now negotiating the terms of Taleban's return. Check!
In both wars:
-
Kill several hundred thousands innocent people, multiply that with all those who lost their loved one.
-
Less than 6000 US soldiers were killed.
-
Less than 100000 were harmed in other ways.
US achieved EXACTLY NOTHING of what you set out to do, it achieved other distinctly less desirable things, though.
You simply NEED to give up those illusions that the wars were worth it in any way - except, of course, to those who profited from them.
1
I never said the wars were just. So get off your fucking high horse you piece of fucking shit.
Our objective in Iraq was to overthrow Saddam and get their oil. We did just that with a ridiculously high Kill to Death ratio.
In Afghanistan we overthrew the Taliban government, put a US friendly government in and killed many Taliban leaders, including Bin Laden. Also with a ridiculously high K/D ratio.
You're right, in both wars the US was efficient at killing and in relative terms, very few US soldiers died.
The US achieved what it set out to do.
Now listen hear you piece of shit, I have no god damned fucking illusions that the wars were in any way just or fought in a just manner. So fuck you and your preconceived notions of me you piece of shit euro trash. You are a fucking delusional moron if you think that the Afghani and Iraqi governments that the United States declared war on defeated them. Why? Because they don't fucking exist anymore because the United States dropped them like a bag of bricks.
1
ahem they were not lost. they were just on a fast track to never ending so we strategically withdrew :D
to be honest the only reason we left is because bush agreed we would be out by 2012 and the iraqi gov wouldent let obama keep us there. now they are starting to oust contractors as well. seems they are ready for us to be gone.
-2
ahem they were not lost.
By any other name - ha ha!
1
The US could have easily renegotiated the immunity deal if we wanted to. No effort was made to do so because we were more than ready to leave. The deadline is just political cover. No matter what happens in Iraq now the United States can rightfully say it's not our problem.
-1
That is why there are 15K combat troops now stationed on the Kuwaiti side of its' border with Iraq.
Obama tried hard to get that immunity deal, and after the way Iraq was treated, I suspect that no one could have accomplished it. Blackwater, US Troops and others made it impossible.
1
Lol lost? No no, stupid, expensive, and rough on us? Yes. Lost, no, we spent more money rebuilding after we reduced it to rubble.
-3
I appreciate your need to avoid the "L"-word but there's no two ways about it.
we spent more money after we reduced it to rubble.
FTFY
4
Oh I get it, you're one of those people. Nevermind!
0
Obama is just cowering since Russia and China have both declared an attack on Iran to be an attack on them.
It's not that he doesn't want to attack. It is that he is a fully castrated bitch at this point.
-5
Obama is just cowering
True, what a chicken. We need someone with guts to run the White House. Btw, I suggest that an attack on Iran starts with a solid bombing of the Russian side of the Russia/Iran border to cut off supplies that way and a equally solid bombing of relevant Chinese ports, just to show them who's the boss.
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole
Cole is a fantastic writer and authority on the ME.
3
i really hope that this is the case. Although who is to say that this is will end the iranian conflict? if iran launches an attack, obama will be forced to change his position on the war. The conditions in the straight of hormuz cannot remain the way they are forever. And many would argue that the sanctions on iran were an act of war. are we to expect that the iranians will not respond to such an action? I hope that iran possess the sanctity to not launch an attack. I also hope that the elites of America have the sanctity to not execute a planned "attack" on america (gulf of tonkin type incident). It is important that we weigh out all possible options and are educated on what to expect in each case. knowledge prevents fear, and when fear is eliminated one can see clear.
How are the sanctions an act of war? The United States certainly has the right to decide who we want to do business with. Same is true of the EU. It's not a blockade after all. If it's an act of war then we could say any country that doesn't buy (enough) stuff from the United States has committed an act of war against us. That would be absurd.
Sanctions are an act of war. That plus devaluing their currency creates a maelstrom of inflation and lack of supplies. You don't have to send an army into a country to kill and demoralize the population.
You're right the US does have the right to do business with whomever. That being said, sanctions aren't the best way to do business with people we have a problem with. Diplomacy should be the most effective weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Effects_on_the_Iraqi_people_during_sanctions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions
Upvote for you. Sanctions are an act of war. That plus devaluing their currency creates a maelstrom of inflation and lack of supplies. You don't have to send an army into a country to kill and demoralize the population.
[deleted]