Watching CNN about Iran Revelations ...I think Nato will Bomb...but is that the real solution Obama

[KoKo]

is proposing?

Watching Obama's speech it seemed he was pursuing hard diplomacy. I had no problem with his talking about NATO allies being in favor of tough sanctions and that they had intelligence from three sources about Iran's new nuclear facility.

But, after the speech I tuned into CNN and the crew there, including Mary (Bomb Iran)Matalin and Donna (whatever Wolf say) Brazille and Blitzer himself seemed to be saying that what Obama said was like what Bush said in the run up to Iraq Invasion i.e. that Iran had time and again Lied about what they had and defied UN and they all had grave faces like when we were in the pre-Iraq Invasion phase.

I switched over to Mike Barnicle (sp) filling in for Tweety and he's a notch down but talking about "Obama's Test" this is a make or break it and Jamie Rubin in talking about the revelations that showed how crucial it was to make sure the sanctions were tough enough and if they weren't...well that was left open. Then they moved over to the new "Terrorist Plots in Big Cities in America" stuff. (Implication was that Terror and Iran Nukes were somehow tied together.)

I turned it all off after that. Obama was reasoned in his discussion...but it was taken by partisans on all sides between CNN and MSNBC that a new WAR is being planned and that according to MSNBC it's a better "new war" than Bush because Obama used three sources of Intelligence info about Iran to prove they are going to nuke and CNN who said..."this is the build up that President Bush used as a foundation to invade Iraq."

So...I wonder...are the American People (including the "Tea Baggers" and "Palinistas" going to support US/Nato strikes on Iran? If it's "surgical" will they be really glad they have a Obama Presidency? What will those of us here on the "Progressive" side think or do about strikes?

And given the state of our economy...would strikes on Iran cause anyone to get upset or would it be the WWII scenario where WAR IS GOOD and ECONOMY RECOVERS FASTER! Will Glen Beck and Limbaugh cheer?

:shrug:

[bemildred]

1. This is political theater, they will do nothing except make lots of noise. nt

[KoKo]

4. You feel Israel is just sitting by and AIPAC doesn't have any input into what Obama

is saying? :shrug:

[bemildred]

17. No, I think this is political theater, all talk in other words.

Israel is hardly sitting by, and AIPAC certainly does have input with Obama.

[tridim]

2. A new war is the last thing the President wants.

He has said so himself.

Relax.

[KoKo]

5. That's exactly what I got out of his speech and the "Q&A" but CNN and MSNBC weren't interpreting

it that way. I saw them interpreting it the way I remember we got into Iraq. Heated rhetoric and talking about NATO, Russia and China getting into "sanctions" ...united with the UN to be TOUGH.

We know sanctions don't work and they were saying Iran is beyond sanctions because "they lied." Whipping up WAR with Iran at this time? Who gains...and what would the American People (under tremendous stress) thing about "pre-emptive strikes" which is what I heard the cables...especially CNN whipping up.

"A Test of the President" was the Meme from both MSNBC AND CNN with CNN the most vocal. CNN is always focused on TERRORISTS and WHIPPING WAR... but MSNBC folks were echoing in a milder way.

Where is the voice of REALISTS! TWO WARS....NO MONEY? WHO SPEAKS FOR US? :shrug:

[grantcart]

3. There is no indication of increased military threat

The fact that there is broader agreement towards a multilateral diplomatic stance (with Russia and China) significantly DECREASES the liklihood of unilateral military action.

At no point has any observer ever posed the idea that NATO would take action against Iran.

The next level of sanctions could be very difficult for Iran.

They have no refining activiites and if sanctions were increased to include gasoline then ironically one of the largest petroleum producers in the world would ground to a halt.

More significantly, since it has now been established that Iran has been lying to the IAEA the other oil producers would have cover to increase oil production until the sanctions were removed.

[KoKo]

7. I take it "Grantcart" that you believe that the MSM has no voice in whipping war?

You believe that "diplomacy" is the reason we are in both Iraq and Afghanistan? You believe that Diplomacy prevailed in both those instances and that MSM whipping folks is just "talk?"

You BELIEVE THAT after what you've seen we've gotten ourselves into from Korea, through Vietnam...to the latest? You BELIEVE THAT?

I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. You wanna buy it? :eyes:

[grantcart]

19. You are the naive one. You are watching a baseball game and trying to keep

track of the football.


We are not watching an administration that is whipping up a war fever to launch military action.


We are watching a world leader who is raising the level of dialogue with serious countries, like Russia and developing a united multilateral front to apply pressure against an outlaw regime.


Now the question is does that work.


Yes it does - all the time.


I believe that because shortly after the Vietnam War I walked into Vietnam while they were loading hundreds of thousands of American related Vietnamese and Vietnamese of Chinese descent on boats and pushing them out to sea and negotiated an orderly departure program that allowed them to leave with visas. The first ones out were the children of CIA agents.

(I also saw that same public pressure force the United States to increase its rate of taking refugees.)

Now more similar and directly on point Ghaddaffi negotiated an end to his WMD and settlement of the Lockerbie bombing


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,474532,00.html

Is Muammar Gaddafi finally ready to make amends? In an interview with TIME, the Libyan ruler said his country will accept responsibility under international law for the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. In exchange for Libya's admission and payments of $2.7 billion to the families of victims, he said, the U.N. sanctions that have blocked the world from doing business with Libya would be lifted —


Obama just scored on a squeeze play and your waiting for a touchdown.

By the way your jingoistic apoplexy has gotten a little ahead of you if you are lumping the Korean War in with Vietnam War. The Korean War was started by an unprovoked attack by North Korean forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#North_Korea_invades_.28June_1950.29


Under the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the North Korean Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel, behind artillery fire, at Sunday dawn of 25 June 1950.<37>:14 The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the "bandit traitor Syngman Rhee", had crossed the border first—and that they would arrest and execute President Singman Rhee.<43> In the past year, both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes—and each continually raided the other country across the 38th-parallel border, as in a civil war.

Hours later, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of South Korea (ROK), with UNSC Resolution 82, so adopted despite the USSR, a veto-wielding power, boycotting the Council meetings since January—protesting that the (Taiwan) Republic of China, and not the (mainland) People's Republic of China held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.<57> On 27 June 1950, President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member-state military assistance to the Republic of Korea. Incidentally, while awaiting the Council's fait accompli announcement to the UN, the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister accused the US of starting armed intervention in behalf of South Korea.<58>

...

There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time



As for Vietnam, I was a CO in the draft, organized demonstrations against the war, drafted the anti war position of the United Presbyterian Church, received a grant from the World Council of Churches to take a year working with refugees and ended up working to resettle 440,000 Vietnamese refugees from Vietnam from 1978-1984. The penchant to try and make every single dispute somehow analagous to Vietnam is the crutch for people who are disposed to categorize all brown people into the same pen of victomhood.


The issues here are simple. Iran is trying to achieve a nuclear program of undetermined dimensions by deceiving the IAEA. The Obama adminstration is using mulilateral diplomacy to establish a united front, including Russia and China, so that a diplomatic and non military solution will be exercised.


Just becase a ball is involved doesn't mean its always football. In this case its Baseball.

[KoKo]

20. "...crutch for people who are disposed to categorize all brown people into the same pen of victomhoo

I have no idea what you are saying. You accuse me of "jingoism" and then imply I'm one of those who would use "The penchant to try and make every single dispute somehow analagous to Vietnam is the crutch for people who are disposed to categorize all brown people into the same pen of victomhood."


How are those who protested against the Vietnam War and Iraq Invasion using a "crutch to categorize...all brown people into the same pen of victomhood."

My post is about the same MSM/Think Tank cooperation that sold American People into wars now whipping it up again. Which, I pointed out was counter to what I heard Obama saying in his speech.

I wonder why you sought to attack my post and me (accusing me of jingoism..when I pointing out the influence of the MSM/Think Tanks of the Right with whipping war) with such an odd counter? :shrug:

[grantcart]

22. First of all you jumble your historical references.

The South Koreans were invaded by the North and the United States reacted to that act of aggression.


You apparently are equating President Obama's building a multilateral diplomatic confrontation (based on facts) with Iran with Bush's unilateral military attack on Iraq (that was based on lies).


Confrontation by itself is not wrong. Multilateral confrontation by the community of neighbors to stop a nuclear arms race in the middle east is critical to maintain peace.

Also it is critical to creating the foundation for improving negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

You are watching diplomacy and thinking that it is militarism. Sometimes diplomacy gets tough and in your face but that doesn't make it a military action. Obama is telling Iran that they either are going to have to come clean with the IAEA or face sanctions. Iran doesn't refine its own petroleum. If the UN Security Council were to ban gasoline into Iran their economy would collapse. That is tough multilateral action to stop nuclear proliferation, it is not military action.

I never said that people who protested the Vietnam War are using "crutch to categorize...all brown people into the same pen of victomhood".

[11 Bravo]

6. As long as they have no skin in the game, Beck and Limbaugh will cheer any armed conflict.

It's the chickenhawk mentality, and it is deeply ingrained in each of them.

[ddeclue]

8. What are fuck are you smoking?

We could bomb the crap out of Iran from the air and kill lots of civillians but we probably wouldn't even scratch Iran's enrichment facilities because they are almost certainly underground.

Short of nuking these facilities there's little we could do from the air to disable them.

The alternative would be to invade Iran.

The question would be:

With what army?

Ours is already overstretched in Iraq, Afghanistan and holding the line in South Korea.

We dare not open up yet another war unless we are going into WWII mode with a universal draft and a total conversion of our economy to total global war.

Do YOU see that happening?

I don't.

NATO may complain but they won't act to stop Iran - they don't even want to be in Afghanistan.

If we do, God forbid, start something miltarily with Iran we'd better not do it half way and leave the regime in power because that is just inviting retaliation in Iraq, Afghanistan, in the Gulf or just about anywhere around the world. Iran has a sophisticated military and intelligence apparatus - we would be opening a can of worms that we don't want.

The only country that COULD engage them militarily would be Russia but I doubt that would happen - unless that's what we just secretly traded the Russians for by withdrawing our missile defense systems from Eastern Europe.

The only external alternative would be to totally isolate them financially, trade wise, etc. and try to starve them out - it might work, it probably won't because people are always willing to run blockades to make a buck.

The only internal alternative would be for the Iranians to foment their own revolution. If we tried to help it would only back fire since we've meddled in their internal politics in truly shameful ways in the past.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. "NATO" can't bomb -- it doesn't have the capacity. We do.

But no one in the military seems that interested in actually carrying it out. People have resigned over it already. The present Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has wondered aloud in public if it would do more harm than good, on numerous occasions, going back to 2007.

The networks may have their 'War on Iran' theme music all cued up, and their highly-decorated talking heads on speed-dial, but there's no real movement for it among the people who would actually have to order it, or carry it out.

[KoKo]

10. How do you know there's no "real movement among the people"????

We've done it three or four times...if you include Korea. :shrug:

[KoKo]

11. Obama is working in coordination with NATO..and if Iran doesn't comply then

it will take that coordinated effort.

What the hell are YOU smoking that you post such idiocy that "no one in the miliatry seems that interested in actually carrying it out."

Who are you "wired into" that you know for a fact that "no one in military when we are in two WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN! You think the Bush/NeoCon Military was REPLACE once Bush vacated the Oval Office?

:eyes: Or, are you privy to info the rest of us suckers out here don't have?

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. When the Chairman JCS says, repeatedly, in public...

...over a period of nearly three years, and two presidents, that it's a bad idea, I'm thinking that in the highest military circles, it's considered a bad idea.

[KoKo]

15. I'm smoking that I was here when Bush said UN Resolutions said we had to Invade Iraq

and this was after we went into Afghanistan. Maybe you weren't here..to see the power of the press and the Military Think Tankers who promote WAR as answer to every solution.

I could agree with everything you say...except we've invaded four countries on pretext. And CNN and MSNBC were ginning it up. Unless you think the "MSM" is supporting Obama's diplomatic efforts (which would be a 360 degree turn from their past performance, then perhaps it's not Me that's Smoking something but your Pollyanish view that Obama is really after Diplomacy and won't be goaded into war with Iran by the same Think Tanks and Media who got us into the other wars America is always involved in. But, you think it will be better because we have "allies" ...just like Afghanistan.. How's that one going with our "allies?" :shrug:

[KoKo]

12. Why would this inquiring post have folks hitting "unrecommend?"

Makes no sense. It's a GD Question about Obama's speech and Media Coverage of it.

This one makes no sense that anyone would want to shut down discussion about an issue like what we do with Iran. Have DU'ers "Jumped the Shark?" :shrug:

[backscatter712]

13. Notice that Europe, Russia, China, etc. are issuing statements of support.

Which is refreshing considering they spent the last eight years facepalming (along with us here at DU) every time Bush opened his trap and talked about Iran.

When we've got most of the world's powers standing with us and demanding Iran clean up it's act, we're more likely to get some positive results without having to blow things up.

Amazing, this diplomacy thing.

[FarCenter]

16. Britain is hot, France is warm, Germany is room temperature, Russis is cool, China is frigid

Follow the newpaper web sites from the various capitals.

Don't believe the crap on US news sites. And especially don't believe talking heads on cable news channels when it comes to evaluating the sentiments of foreign governments.

[bemildred]

18. That's about right. nt

[KoKo]

21. So you say to OP...shut up about it. Don't believe the media...all is well all is in hand

and why post about this on DU in the General Discussion Forum. "We, the insiders" know what the truth is and it's not open to discussion because those who watch media are fools and the diplomats all know what they are doing.

Really? :shrug: You believe that? Let's shut up the discussion from inquiring minds who've watched how this has played before?

[cliffordu]

23. Nato isn't going to bomb anyone, skippy.

fuck me it's getting thick around here.