Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

[papaspur]

I'm a little confused with the whole Romney/Iran thing. I thought foreign policy was his strong point?

As I was led to believe, many in the US who support Obama are a little scared by his softly-softly approach to letting religious nutjobs make nuclear weapons. Did I have that wrong?

When you say religious nutjobs, are you referring to us or them?
I can't speak for most Americans, but I have confidence that if Iran does get close to deploying a nuclear weapon, they will be dealt with swiftly. There are plenty of other countries with nuclear weapons, but we Americans and Russia have the most.

After Obama took office, he did tighten the sanctions on Iran to the point where they can hardly even sell their oil. They're a mess economically and will struggle to continue their program.

Can we all just agree that Bush's approach to foreign policy was a massive failure? Not to mention that a weakened Iraq meant a strengthened Iran.

 

[papaspur]

Not yet, no. Although I think that they will be in a position to use weapons before the sanctions can stop them.

At some point I suspect there will be a far tougher decision to make and I'm not sure Obama is the man to make it (not sure Romney is either). I thought that was a common opinion in the US too.

I basically repeated what Leeds said, but the point is that we will know when the right time to strike is. That time has not yet come. Netenyahu looked a bit of a fool when he made his red-line comments to the UN, but there's still a bit more time before we have to take the military option.

Why wouldn't Obama make the decision? It will be a joint Israeli-US effort and I put a lot more faith in intelligence now over raw military power. Obama's improved our intelligence capabilities (we got bin laden) and given them greater emphasis as he realized that knowledge is power!

 

[scaramanga]

When you say religious nutjobs, are you referring to us or them?

:ross:

I can't speak for most Americans, but I have confidence that if Iran does get close to deploying a nuclear weapon, they will be dealt with swiftly. There are plenty of other countries with nuclear weapons, but we Americans and Russia have the most.

The US has a democracy in place - there is a huge amount of accountability to stop your president hitting "the red button" on a whim or because the magic pixies in his head told him to. Not so with Iran.

After Obama took office, he did tighten the sanctions on Iran to the point where they can hardly even sell their oil. They're a mess economically and will struggle to continue their program.

Can we all just agree that Bush's approach to foreign policy was a massive failure? Not to mention that a weakened Iraq meant a strengthened Iran.

Agree with the above, although the sanctions have been in place for some time now and as far as any inspectors can tell, the problem still exists.

My prediction for what will happen in the next few years:

Sanctions will continue to fvck Iran's economy
People will become restless
Khamenei will put Ahmadinejad out on his arse
People will vote for a new "president"
US will continue sanctions
"Evil" US will now be blamed for Iran's FUBAR economy as they have continued sanctions despite a new regime being in place
Iran's nuclear weapons program will gain public support
Obama will continue to press for sanctions (just my opinion - some of you seem more sure of his determination)
Iran's batbrick crazy religious supreme leader may or may not decide to wipe out any country of his choosing dependant on the whims of the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Leeds Spur]

I really believe there could be a democracy in Iran inside 20 years.

The population is very young and they are demanding changes.

Iran is nowhere near a usable weapon, if they do get close they will be bombed into hell.

Try and close the straights of hormuz and their nazy will be toast.

 

[jts1882]

That isn't Obama's positition at all.

He has presided over the tougest sanctions ever imposed on Iran, which is why their currency has slumped by 40% in the past 2 weeks.

This is the most effective policy as the shopkeepers costs have skyrocketed and they have been out protesting.

There isn't a thing Obama could do that he hasn't done, short of pre-emptive strikes.

Is that what you're advocating:?

Obama has worked to get the sanctions through the UN. As you say they are the toughest yet, despite 20 years of Republican Presidents since 1979. It might be inconvenient, but tough sanctions require getting the Russians and Chinese to at least acquiesce.

Romney is proposing to stand up to Russia and China while at the same time enforcing tougher sanctions. Only an idiot thinks that can work. Chances are he couldn't get the Europeans to go along so it will be a repeat of the Cuba sanctions. And guess what, Castro is still there. Obama was so right about Romney's policies all being failed one's from another era, although he misidentified the foreign policy with the relatively modern 80s.

The important thing with the sanctions is to make the Iranian government unpopular. With a rich middle class missing out on their material goods, the sanctions are working. Any military action will just get the Iranians backing their government again. At best military action will delay things and allow them to try again more stealthily.

 

[scaramanga]

Obama has worked to get the sanctions through the UN. As you say they are the toughest yet, despite 20 years of Republican Presidents since 1979. It might be inconvenient, but tough sanctions require getting the Russians and Chinese to at least acquiesce.

Romney is proposing to stand up to Russia and China while at the same time enforcing tougher sanctions. Only an idiot thinks that can work. Chances are he couldn't get the Europeans to go along so it will be a repeat of the Cuba sanctions. And guess what, Castro is still there. Obama was so right about Romney's policies all being failed one's from another era, although he misidentified the foreign policy with the relatively modern 80s.

The important thing with the sanctions is to make the Iranian government unpopular. With a rich middle class missing out on their material goods, the sanctions are working. Any military action will just get the Iranians backing their government again. At best military action will delay things and allow them to try again more stealthily.

Usually I'd agree. In this case though, they have a supreme overlord who can change the government, stay in place and still deflect blame towards Israel/The US.

 

[papaspur]

Iran's batbrick crazy religious supreme leader may or may not decide to wipe out any country of his choosing dependant on the whims of the flying spaghetti monster.

Please don't say the lord's name in vain unless it's Pasta Sunday.

I think there is a rather fine "red line", that once crossed, will see inevitable action. I know for a fact that if Israel acts, we will have to as well. So even if it's not us leading the charge, we will be involved.
The sanctions on Iran under the Bush administration was baby-town frolics. These sanctions have more bite to them.

I agree with JTS: we've got our hands bloody in enough conflicts as it is, and I'd prefer to keep that number as close to zero as possible. To reiterate, there will be a time for action if the sanctions ultimately fail, but that time is not now.

 

[papaspur]

Usually I'd agree. In this case though, they have a supreme overlord who can change the government, stay in place and still deflect blame towards Israel/The US.

The (relatively) recent developments of the Arab Spring has proved that the power lies with the people*



*as long as the government doesn't run them over with tanks

 

[scaramanga]

The (relatively) recent developments of the Arab Spring has proved that the power lies with the people*



*as long as the government doesn't run them over with tanks

I remember having a conversation recently with DHSF about the uprising in Egypt.

My concern was that once the military was out of the way, they'd be replaced by religious nuts. I was assured (and everything I read after that point backed this up) that Egypt was a fairly progressive country and comparatively secular compared to its neighbours.

Recently I listened to a number of interviews on Radio 4 with people living in Egypt who were all distraught at their electoral choice between the old military under a new name and the religious freaks that are so destructive in that part of the world.

The people may get the vote, but don't be surprised if the only options they have are those given to them by their religious leaders.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

I remember having a conversation recently with DHSF about the uprising in Egypt.

My concern was that once the military was out of the way, they'd be replaced by religious nuts. I was assured (and everything I read after that point backed this up) that Egypt was a fairly progressive country and comparatively secular compared to its neighbours.

Recently I listened to a number of interviews on Radio 4 with people living in Egypt who were all distraught at their electoral choice between the old military under a new name and the religious freaks that are so destructive in that part of the world.

The people may get the vote, but don't be surprised if the only options they have are those given to them by their religious leaders.

But the alternative is what? The West wanted democracy in Egypt and this is what they got. It really is hard to recall a situation where any sort of nation building/regime change by the US has ended well in the long term.

 

[papaspur]

As cynical as I am about religions, I agree with Skinhead. It's still a young movement in a volatile region. And if they don't like democracy, they should invent a new form of government. Then, we can steal it and patent it and charge them a licensing fee.

 

[scaramanga]

But the alternative is what? The West wanted democracy in Egypt and this is what they got. It really is hard to recall a situation where any sort of nation building/regime change by the US has ended well in the long term.

My point - especially in relation to Iran - is that the people can only vote for those put in front of them at an election. I would be very surprised if the people of Iran get an option that isn't simply a puppet for their theocratic supreme overlord.

 

[thfcsteff]

My point - especially in relation to Iran - is that the people can only vote for those put in front of them at an election. I would be very surprised if the people of Iran get an option that isn't simply a puppet for their theocratic supreme overlord.

Considering the west's ability to initiate regime change as and when it seemingly wishes (Mossedeqh - sp?- being an Iranian example of a moderate, democratic leader replaced by western patsy who was then dumped 25 odd years later for the new player in town, Saddam) you would have to ask why there was no support/initiative to support the moderate government/regime change, shown in the last elections there. All that was said was by Rice, who spouted some guff about 'the elections there won't be legitimate anyway'...fantastic! Way to show those who were on the verge of a massive uprising that you give a brick! In fact, the uprisings seen in the Middle East a couple of years later were absolutely more dangerous than what was happening in Iran. the whole farce was summed up by the Iranian protester who was killed by government police, shot in the head if I remember correctly. Front page news everywhere, media paying attention...then Michael Jackson died and that, my friends, was the end of that! Only a lunatic would think that Ahmadinejad is even close to sanity when it comes to leading a nation. That includes most Iranian people.

I'm not in favor of regime change but it is with us, and has been for decades upon decades. Would be nice to see efforts put forth to help moderates in Iran.

 

[Hootnow]

I'm a little confused with the whole Romney/Iran thing. I thought foreign policy was his strong point?

As I was led to believe, many in the US who support Obama are a little scared by his softly-softly approach to letting religious nutjobs make nuclear weapons. Did I have that wrong?

Romney is clearly brick at foreign policy and I don't think many people would claim that it is his strong point. The population trusts Obama more on FP than Romney, when it is usually the Republicans that get the nod for this. As Obama said, when he comes and offends us (their closest ally) over the bloody Olympics, how is he going to do he has to talk to Russia, China and Iran?

Softly-softly approach? In what way is his approach softly-softly?

Not yet, no. Although I think that they will be in a position to use weapons before the sanctions can stop them.

At some point I suspect there will be a far tougher decision to make and I'm not sure Obama is the man to make it (not sure Romney is either). I thought that was a common opinion in the US too.

The funniest thing about this Iranian 'nuke' is that they've been predicted to have one for 20 years now. Good old Bibi himself predicted they were 3-5 years away from the bomb. Did he say this a couple of years ago? Nope, in 1992. Peres said they'd have it by 1999. Israeli and US offcials then said they would have it by 2000. Rumsfeld informs Congress in 1998 that Iran could have an ICBM capable of reaching the US by 2003.

And it continues. Iran is always a couple of years away from the bomb. And Israel/the US are always 6 months away from bombing them. All this despite the rarely publicised NIE report in 2003 which predicted, with high confidence, that Iran had stopped its programme in 2003, coinciding with the fall of Iran's real enemy.

Do the Iranians have the will to actually build the bomb? Of course I'm not privy to confidential information but I don't think so. I could be wrong. The hysteria is beyond hilarious though.

Obama isn't the man to make it? This is the man who continuously orders drone strikes on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia while declaring all military age males militants right? He'll be just fine.

 

[Hootnow]

I remember having a conversation recently with DHSF about the uprising in Egypt.

My concern was that once the military was out of the way, they'd be replaced by religious nuts. I was assured (and everything I read after that point backed this up) that Egypt was a fairly progressive country and comparatively secular compared to its neighbours.

Recently I listened to a number of interviews on Radio 4 with people living in Egypt who were all distraught at their electoral choice between the old military under a new name and the religious freaks that are so destructive in that part of the world.

The people may get the vote, but don't be surprised if the only options they have are those given to them by their religious leaders.

In the presidential election first round, the % of secular-islamist was 57-43, with one of the 2 Islamist candidates being a relative moderate. As you say, those secular candidates split the votes between them in a horrible way. Same with the most revolutionary canditates.

One of my favourite quotes is by Cesar Chavez. He said

'Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot un-educate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore.'

Of course, a revolution does not always bring perfect democracy. But let us not pretend that our democracies sprung up in an instant. Women were not allowed to vote in this country less than a hundred years ago. Blacks in the US were forced to get up on buses if a white told them to within many of our living memories. These are time periods which are minute just in human history, let alone the history of this planet. And yet we seem so eager to denounce others as failures when they don't spring up as perfect democracies within 18 months.

 

[Hootnow]

But the alternative is what? The West wanted democracy in Egypt and this is what they got. It really is hard to recall a situation where any sort of nation building/regime change by the US has ended well in the long term.

No the west didn't want democracy in Egypt. They want stability, which has always been their policy in the ME, regardless of the wishes of the local population. They've been paying Sadat and Mubarak for 33 years to do whatever they pleased in that country. If they'd wanted democracy, they would have used their leverage to push Mubarak out a long time ago. Instead, they peddled some crap about HR and turned a blind eye as he tortured and killed his citizens, stole the country's money and oversaw one of the most fraudulent elections in history in 2010.

I'm often astounded by the sheer arrogance of some in the West. The Egyptian revolution was an Egyptian ordeal. It had nothing to do with what the West wanted. Those millions who came out for those 18 days didn't come out because of anything the West said or did. They didn't care what Obama said in public or in private to Mubarak. A huge % have never seen another leader except Mubarak. A huge % have had their lives ruined by Mubarak. They were sick of the corruption, non-existent infrastructure, education and healthcare. Sick of the theft.

I guess there is one thing 'the West' could have said. They could have given the go ahead for the army to go in and massacre Egyptians. Whether the army would have agreed or not is not guaranteed of course but this is the option you're advocating then I'm guessing?

But to call the Egyptian revolution a US attempt at regime change is quite unbelievable.

 

[Hootnow]

But to bring it back on topic, this is the GOP's multiple definitions of *struggle cuddle*....

 

[papaspur]

Some good posts, Hoot. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Skinhead wasn't saying that the West was formative to the Arab Spring. But you're right in that the West wants "democracy" in the Middle East. Their handling of Bahrain's uprising was fairly deplorable, IMO.

We are a giant empire ruled by oligarchs. And honestly, having to worry about batbrick neo-cons doesn't let us put enough pressure on the person we actually do support. I wish voting was a much more difficult decision. This *struggle cuddle* chart is just one of the pieces of evidence of why my choice is so easy...

 

[AuroRaman]

I really believe there could be a democracy in Iran inside 20 years.

The population is very young and they are demanding changes.

Iran is nowhere near a usable weapon, if they do get close they will be bombed into hell.

Try and close the straights of hormuz and their nazy will be toast.

=D>

I have close connections to Iran. Although Indian, my mothers side of the family lived there for 30 years. They only left due to the revolution. The young population are demanding democracy. Iran has nuclear capabilities, but according to some, their scientists are more interested in creating in its energy capabilities and the 'threat' of making a weapon is more posturing than anything else.
This is not ITK!!!

 

[Hootnow]

Some good posts, Hoot. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Skinhead wasn't saying that the West was formative to the Arab Spring. But you're right in that the West wants "democracy" in the Middle East. Their handling of Bahrain's uprising was fairly deplorable, IMO.

We are a giant empire ruled by oligarchs. And honestly, having to worry about batbrick neo-cons doesn't let us put enough pressure on the person we actually do support. I wish voting was a much more difficult decision. This *struggle cuddle* chart is just one of the pieces of evidence of why my choice is so easy...

I apologise to Skinhead if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick, its just that I've had to inform quite a few people in the past year or so who confidently stated that it was Obama who pushed Mubarak and Ben Ali without without having a handle on the facts.

Indeed papaspur. I really hope for your sakes that in the next 10-20 years, the republicans move away from the lunatic fringe that has taken over their party and moves to the centre, pushing your whole political spectrum to the left or a plausible, genuine 3rd option springs up that isn't loony Paul and that can't just be hovered up by one of the two.

I'm optimistic about the first having at least because the demographics of the US are changing to such an extent that Tea baggers will no longer be able to focus on just appealing to the white males. Even in states like Texas, they will soon become the minority. And they'll soon need to stop doing crap like this....

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/10/26/colin-powells-former-chief-of-staff-my-party-is-full-of-racists/

Its a shame, because every time I think about possibly relocating to the States, a country I find fascinating, I get very turned off by the politics. I really hope it is sorted out soon and in the near future, simple issues like gay and woman rights are not such a controversial issue!