Obama says Iraq war makes Iran stronger, but U.S. and Israel less secure

Thursday 05th June, 06:40 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 59 Total Comments Show All

WilliB at 11:08 AM JST - 9th June

Obama is clueless about the Middle East; worse, he is a Carterite. Scary to think we might have Carter II in the oval office soon.
WilliB at 11:27 AM JST - 9th June

Betzee:

" The other danger inherent in "pre-emptive strikes" is they encourage other governments to procure nukes as the only way to deter such an invasion. Such is the case with Iran (among others). "

Reality check: Iran`s nuclear program precedes the Iraq invasion by long time. They had been working on it for years, while lying to the IAC. Sorry, I know it is tempting to blame GWB for every wrong under the sun, but reality is not that simple.
SezWho2 at 09:58 PM JST - 9th June

WilliB,

Whether or not Iran's nuclear program predates the Iraq invasion has no bearing on whether the preemptive strike against Iraq encourages Iran to procure nuclear weapons. "To encourage" means "to strengthen resolve", "to give heart to", "to urge on". It does not mean "to cause".
WhiteHawk at 04:45 AM JST - 10th June

SezWho2:

There is no single President who is to blame for the Middle East.

Well, it must be the people of the Middle East who are at fault then. Or can someone point that out without being called a racist?

As for Obama continuing the policies of Carter, I believe that it was you who made that claim. Encouraging me to list the differences between the two is no substitute for your supporting that claim with the specific Carter policies that you think Obama will continue.

So you can't find any differences between their policies either. That's okay, neither has anyone else.
adaydream at 05:36 AM JST - 10th June

We have mismanaged our involvement there from the time that we noticed it was important to be involved...

That may be true, but no one else but george bush has been so arrogant that they would put together a portfolio of lies, fabrications and inuendos to attack a virtually defenseless country.

After 10 tears of "No fly zones" where we destroyed almost every weapon they own; then george bush wants to persuade the American people that they have WMD. And he did. his lies and his lie machine persuaded most Americans of the potential that Iraq didn't have.

And John McCain would keep the Americans in Iraq for another 100 years or more. He would like to see the Anerican/Iraqi pact signed so we could maintain permanent US bases in Iraq.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!!!! < :-)
SezWho2 at 10:43 PM JST - 10th June

WhiteHawk,

If no single President is to blame for (our problems in) the Middle East, it does not follow that it must be the people of the Middle East who are at fault. Or can one point that out without being too logical? I have no doubt that the people in the Middle East are part of the problem but we are there and we are a part of the problem too. Considering that they are at home and we are not, our part in the problem is significant--especially when a string of Presidents have mismanaged it.

Again, you made the claim that Obama's policies were the same as Carter's. Now you make the rather snarky comment that because I do not list the differences there aren't any. That slipper fits your own foot rather better, I think. Because you do not list the similarities there may not be any.
WhiteHawk at 03:46 AM JST - 11th June

SezWho2, how about this for a start?

Carter like Obama, ran on a message of "change".

Carter, like Obama, thought people like the mullahs of Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah were reasonable people you could trust at their word and have a productive dialogue with and who had legitimate greivances.

Obama thinks americans eat and drive too much, Carter wanted us to "slip on a sweater, and turn down our thermostats."

Obama thinks the Oil companies are the problem, and wants to "go after them", likely followed by price controls (how else would confiscating their money not result in higher prices?), Carter tried price controls, it was a disaster.

Carter thought there was something inherently wrong with the American mindset (malaise), so does Obama and his wife. (clingers, meanspirited)

Carter eviserated defense programs, Obama has already promised to do the same.

Carter never met a tax he didn't like, and believed the government could do more to help people by "holding" their money for them. Obama? Well, I think you see the pattern already.
SezWho2 at 06:18 AM JST - 11th June

WhiteHawk,

None of the things you have listed are policies.

Furthermore:

McCain is also running on a message of change.

You do not know to what extent either of them thought the mullahs are reasonable. Additionally, the mullahs do have legitimate grievances and they are reasonable. It is whether those grievances can be resolved in a way that is compatible with our own grievances that is at issue.

Americans do eat and drive too much, the latter especially consideing the price of gasoline and its effect on the environment. (The current administration also thinks we eat too much and is concerned enough about how much we drive that it is looking into alternative fuel sources.) It would have been better had we turned down the thermostats and still is. Conservation is a good thing, but it is not a policy.

Obama does not think oil companies are "the" problem. He thinks they are "a" problem. "Likely followed by price controls" is your projection, not his plan.

To think there is not "something" wrong with the American mindset is to live in a state of denial. But the two mindsets you describe are different. The American mindset elected Carter. I'm sure some folks, possibly even you, think there must have been something wrong with that (stupidity perhaps?).

Carter cut back on some defense programs. Some of our current defense programs need to be scaled back or dropped. We spend too much on defense and too much of what we spend is spent in the wrong way.

Neither Carter nor Obama want to tax for the sake of taxation. They want to tax for specific reasons and their recommendations for taxation are different. Yes, Democrats like to tax (and spend) and Republicans like to give tax breaks which mostly benefit businesses and tout responsibility. But there is considerable difference among them. For example, instead of being a "small government and fiscally responsible Republican", Bush has been a "borrow and spend Republican".

Your list is simply a measure of how much you despise Obama and how willing you are to associate meaningless similarities to suggest that he would be as poor (or poorer?) a President than you consider Carter to have been.
RedMeatKoolAid at 11:05 AM JST - 11th June

Why are Democrats admitting at last that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Why did they release proof of these connections only hours after Hillary Clinton dropped out of race to be the Democratic nominee?
SezWho2 at 08:31 PM JST - 11th June

Why are the Democrats admitting something the Pentagon and the CIA have denied?
WhiteHawk at 04:54 AM JST - 12th June

SezWho2:

None of the things you have listed are policies.

Excuse me? Those stated views of Obama's give no indication of the direction he would take as president? Then why did he state them? Didn't Carter's similar views shape his disastrous policies?

You do not know to what extent either of them thought the mullahs are reasonable. Additionally, the mullahs do have legitimate grievances and they are reasonable.

They both think that the mullahs are reasonable enough to have unconditional talks with them, these supporters of terrorism and murderers of American civilians and troops. Such a mindset is either reckless naivety or reckless ignorance, but it's reckless all the same.

Just what legitimate grievances do the mullahs have? That Israel still exists? That the entire planet doesn't adhere to Islamic law? That most of the rest of the world doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons? And what is your evidence that they are reasonable?

Americans do eat and drive too much, the latter especially consideing the price of gasoline and its effect on the environment.

Maybe we should have a smaller country. Maybe we should pack the entire country into stacked cities, creating mega heat islands with excessive traffic lights. Or instead maybe we should bring back the passenger rail service industry (which would be a private sector venture, not the government's responsibilty).

You might be a tad young to remember this, but cars didn't always create CO2 with their emissions. It used to be CO, carbon monoxide. But now they create CO2, which is still treated like a poison instead of what it realy is, what plants and trees breath in. There hasn't been a news report for years in the U.S. about acid rain, it's safer to swim in more U.S. rivers than ever before (even the Hudson is clean!), and yet it's still not enough. America must pay and sacrifice, while the increasing thirst and pollution of "developing" countries gets ignored by self-proclaimed environmentalists.

It would have been better had we turned down the thermostats and still is. Conservation is a good thing, but it is not a policy.

Voluntary conservation is one thing, but forcing higher energy prices (through "windfall profit" tax schemes and imposing restrictions on increasing existing energy supplies) on Americans in an attempt to make them conserve is policy.

Besides, I don't know a single person who keeps their thermostat at some ridiculous temperature. We have to pay our own bills, after all.

Obama does not think oil companies are "the" problem. He thinks they are "a" problem. "Likely followed by price controls" is your projection, not his plan.

No, that was his projection. Wait, you're not suggesting that he doesn't plan to follow through on his campaign promises, are you? ;)

To think there is not "something" wrong with the American mindset is to live in a state of denial. But the two mindsets you describe are different. The American mindset elected Carter. I'm sure some folks, possibly even you, think there must have been something wrong with that (stupidity perhaps?).

Okay, you've got me there. Yes, I think it was stupidity. After all, a taxpayer voting for a Democrat is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders, as the old saying goes. But you have to remember the times we were in. Carter ran after Nixon's resignation and Ford serving as the first unelected president in America's history. Karl Marx himself could've run on the DNC ticket and been elected, for crying out loud.

Oh, wait...

Carter cut back on some defense programs. Some of our current defense programs need to be scaled back or dropped. We spend too much on defense and too much of what we spend is spent in the wrong way.

Y'know, if you replaced "defense" with "welfare" or "entitlement" (same thing to a conservative like me), you would have one of my posts. Considering that Iraq is less than 7% of our budget and welfare/entitlement programs are 60%...

By the way, Clinton cut back on defense programs too. And like Carter, he did so in a reckless and ill-informed manner. All of which hurt us badly in 2001, and prevented a better, faster, more thorough response in Afghanistan. Do you trust Obama to cut defense programs in the best way? He certainly hasn't given me any reason to believe he would.

Neither Carter nor Obama want to tax for the sake of taxation. They want to tax for specific reasons and their recommendations for taxation are different.

Would you like me to name those reasons? No, you probably don't. It's not very flattering.

For example, instead of being a "small government and fiscally responsible Republican", Bush has been a "borrow and spend Republican".

No argument there, and you've listed just one reason why Bush fell out of favor with conservatives like myself.

Your list is simply a measure of how much you despise Obama and how willing you are to associate meaningless similarities to suggest that he would be as poor (or poorer?) a President than you consider Carter to have been.

Not true. What I presented was a list of similarities between Obama's stated views and plans, and Carter's proven views and policies. I have a separate list of why I despise Marxists and socialists. Would you like to see it? Why try to paint me as an Obama hater? Is it my fault that people like Obama, Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt and Wilson line themselves up with those tenets?
WhiteHawk at 06:35 AM JST - 12th June

Oh, and SezWho2? I'm still waiting for your list of how Obama and Carter differ on policies.
SezWho2 at 08:24 AM JST - 12th June

WhiteHawk,

You are excused.

Yes, Obama's views give an indication of the direction he would take if he were President. Carter's views were similar in some ways. Carter's policies were hardly "disastrous", but I'll overlook your attempt to poison the well there.

The key point is that views that are similar in some ways do not translate to the same policies. I believe that your claim was that Obama is "tied to Carter's policies" and that you have suggested that there are no differences in their policies. This claim is your burden and you have not supported it.

What you do instead is use your unsupported claim as a political platform to express your own views. That is fine. It just has nothing to do with Obama's policies or to the alleged sameness between Obama's policies and those of Carters.

If you don't know the mullahs grievances, you haven't been paying attention. They, and many other Muslims are aggrieved, because of US military presence in the Middle East and because of patent US hostility toward Islam. Men in general are reasonable, although some are more willing to bend to some reasons than others. To say that the mullahs are unreasonable simply means that they are not willing to bend to our reasons. A lot of folks consider Bush to be unreasonable.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 62. I think automobiles have always produced CO and CO2. Perhaps the proportion of CO2 is higher today because of advances in fuel utilization, CO being produced mainly by incomplete burning. But as an older guy I don't remember my chemistry all that well. You seem to think that there is no substantial threat to the environment from the burning of fossil fuels and that's fine, too. But you would be in the minority on that and all your arguments have been refuted elsewhere.

Everyone all the time sits somewhere on the scale of conservation. You don't know anyone who sets their thermostat at a ridiculously high temperature. I don't know anyone who sets their thermostat at ridiculously low levels. I agree that within the boundaries of what people can afford energy consumption should be voluntary--and it was under Carter. Encouraging people to conserve is still the right thing to do. Japan is an excellent model for that.

Windfall profit taxes do not force higher energy taxes if the taxes are imposed on what are truly windfall profits. I know that Obama has said that he favors taxes on windfall profits, but I don't know that he has said that he will impose price controls. With anti-gouging legislation we have price controls now, so the phrase "price controls" depends upon what specific measures you are talking about.

Ford was not the first unelected President in our nation's history. He may have been the first President who was not elected as part of a Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket, but in recent memory Johnson served as President without being elected as such. Additionally, it's not as if Ford were plucked from a poli-sci department. He was an elected leader and the leader of the Republican minority in the House. However, it is not necessarily true that it was a given that Carter would defeat Ford. Many, including Ford, believed that he was sabotaged by Reagan's failure to campaign on his behalf. And even that is not the point. The point is about mindset and about your characterization that they believe Carter and Obama believe there is something inherently wrong with the American one. What I am saying is that they no more believe that than you believe it on account of Americans continuing to vote for folks like Obama, Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt and Wilson.

As for Defense spending, it doesn't matter what percentage of the budget it is. What matters is the opportunity cost. We spend 5 times as much per year as China and Russia combined. We spend more than the rest of the world combined. I would trust Obama to make intelligent cuts, yes.

Similarities between views still do not translate into identical policies. Carter and Obama have some similar views. However, Obama is not running against someone who is running against Carter. Obama is running against McCain and the test of Obama's views is not whether they are the same or different than Carter's (and the passage of 30 years alone is likely to produce a difference in actual policies) but whether his views are better or worse than McCains.
SezWho2 at 08:25 AM JST - 12th June

WhiteHawk,

And, by the way, I am still looking for some support as to how Obama is "tied" to Carter's failed policies.
RedMeatKoolAid at 08:24 PM JST - 13th June

Talk of Iran highlights the albatross that is still around the neck of the Democrats' braying mascot. Obama shouldn't be tied to Carter's failed policies just yet. That's not fair. Because until very recently Jimmy Carter liked to tell people that Barack Obama lacked "the proven substance or experience to be the President."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Pg577wapw