Obama, Bush and the coming Arab-Iran War

“I’ve always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same. So if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that. The whole world will be an open door to go that route without any inhibition.” (Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, a former director of Saudi intelligence)

If the Secretary of State’s timeline defies most expert opinion, and if Iran is six years from breakout one has to wonder what would motivate Obama to invest so much time and effort, to say nothing of political capital in pursuit of a deal with Iran leaving it a nuclear threshold state, months from a nuclear weapon? Even were Kerry’s rosy estimates correct still does this administration with a consistent record of “getting it wrong” has hit another home run: just the threat of a nuclear Iran was enough to unleash that which the negotiations are described as avoiding: a nuclear arms race. And Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize based on promises to free the world of the threat of nuclear proliferation will leave office godfather to its spread!

As Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud was quoted above, “I’ve always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same,” a warning delivered many times to both Presidents Bush and Obama. In 2003 the Saudis were preparing to confront the threat of the early-onset  Iranian nuclear weapons program.

A regional nuclear arms race


http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-Jewish-Problem---From-anti-Judaism-to-anti-Semitism/Obama-Bush-and-the-coming-Arab-Iran-War-395654



More to read on the link.
One thing that glaringly stands out here and what to me shows the poor attitudes of the Arab nations is this. Yes we are seeing an Sunni Arab league form against Iran, first to invade Yemen and then clearly to combat Iran later. Why is it we have not seen any such coalition form to defeat ISIS from these nations with the view of using ground forces against them?

On a separate note, as I said Obama's legacy in the Middle East is going to be one where he is more hated than Bush.

So, you are in favor of resolving this by war.  What do you see as the endgame...what will victory look like? We all know what war looks like, but so very little attention is paid to what the endgame will look like and when it will be accomplished.

How many lives will it cost after all is done?  How much money?  Will we (or someone) have to rebuild Iran, like we did Germany?   Who will be left in charge to rule Iran?  Will it be Shi'ias or Sunnis?  How will ISIL figure in?  If Iran is helping us fight ISIL, will we let ISIL take over Iran? Will ISIL be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Will Saudi Arabia?  After it is all over, will Iran be allowed to have nuclear power?  If Iran is allowed to have nuclear capacity, who else will we allow to have nuclear power over there?

I have a million other questions, but start in on those.  Or just tell me what 'victory' will look like...will it look like what we accomplished in Iraq?  Or shall we set up permanent residence, like South Korea: for the past 65-years?  What will be the endgame and when will we be finished?

Original Quill wrote:So, you are in favor of resolving this by war.  What do you see as the endgame...what will victory look like?  We all know what war looks like, but so very little attention is paid to what the endgame will look like and when it will be accomplished.

How many lives will it cost after all is done?  How much money?  Will we (or someone) have to rebuild Iran, like we did Germany?   Who will be left in charge to rule Iran?  Will it be Shi'ias or Sunnis?  How will ISIL figure in?  If Iran is helping us fight ISIL, will we let ISIL take over Iran?  Will ISIL be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Will Saudi Arabia?  After it is all over, will Iran be allowed to have nuclear power?  If Iran is allowed to have nuclear capacity, who else will we allow to have nuclear power over there?

I have a million other questions, but start in on those.  Or just tell me what 'victory' will look like...will it look like what we accomplished in Iraq?  Or shall we set up permanent residence, like South Korea: for the past 65-years?  What will be the endgame and when will we be finished?

Here you go again getting your knickers in a twist.
Where I claim anything other than Obama leaving a legacy which has created him being more hated by Sunni Arab states than Obama?

It's not about me, didge.

It's about getting everyone on the same page...about thinking about what are the alternatives, and what achievements they want to see.

The classic way to reverse-engineer Karl von Clausewitz' principle that war have a purpose, is to ask someone what do they envision as the 'endgame' or the resulting picture they want.  Von Clausewitz, Karl, On War.  Thinking in those terms is a way of asking what purpose you have for going to war.

See, these days--since 9/11 and 7/7 --most of our motives to start conflicts have been revenge.  Now, that's not a very fulfilling way to spend your day, is it?  

Certain feelings, modernly, are what I call 'wasted" emotions: fear, anger and revenge.  Fear shuts down critical thinking in your head, and there are no sabre-tooth tigers anymore so we don't need to shut down our minds when we confront adversity.  Anger is the same...a purely orgasmic emotion that takes up mind-space when we have better things to do.  Revenge is a form of calculation to waste time...once you kill someone he's gone.  WTF???  What have you gained?

Think of it like a savings account: do you want to waste it all, or do you want to make it work for you?  War based upon revenge is orgasmic: we've just wasted $17-trillion, and nearly 5,000 American lives, make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of other lives, and we have absolutely no endgame.  We are still in the process of something--we don't know what--and we have no endgame.  WTF, that's because we didn't know what we wanted to begin with, isn't it?

My former professor, Sheldon Wolin, used to have a saying: thought before action!  I took it to mean you think before moving.  Throughout history, all meaningful thoughts and ideas placed thought before action. All progress had an element of thought before action. So envisioning an 'endgame' is a form of thought before action.  It is what von Clausewitz cautioned us about: have a purpose before going to war.  It's at least worth a moment to think about it, before you vomit your guts into oblivion.

And remember: If you fail to plan...you plan to fail!!

Original Quill wrote:It's not about me, didge.

It's about getting everyone on the same page...about thinking about what are the alternatives, and what achievements they want to see.

The classic way to reverse-engineer Karl von Clausewitz' principle that war have a purpose, is to ask someone what do they envision as the 'endgame' or the resulting picture they want.  Von Clausewitz, Karl, On War.  Thinking in those terms is a way of asking what purpose you have for going to war.

See, these days--since 9/11 and 7/7 --most of our motives to start conflicts have been revenge.  Now, that's not a very fulfilling way to spend your day, is it?  

Certain feelings, modernly, are what I call 'wasted" emotions: fear, anger and revenge.  Fear shuts down critical thinking in your head, and there are no sabre-tooth tigers anymore so we don't need to shut down our minds when we confront adversity.  Anger is the same...a purely orgasmic emotion that takes up mind-space when we have better things to do.  Revenge is a form of calculation to waste time...once you kill someone he's gone.  WTF???  What have you gained?

Think of it like a savings account: do you want to waste it all, or do you want to make it work for you?  War based upon revenge is orgasmic: we've just wasted $17-trillion, and nearly 5,000 American lives, make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of other lives, and we have absolutely no endgame.  We are still in the process of something--we don't know what--and we have no endgame.

My former professor, Sheldon Wolin, used to have a saying: thought before action!  I took it to mean you think before moving.  So envisioning an 'endgame' is a form of thought before action.  It is what von Clausewitz cautioned us about: have a purpose before going to war.

And remember: If you fail to plan...you plan to fail!!

Never said it was about you where yet again you are going off nothing I have stated.
You are so desperate to get your point across which is nothing to do with anything I have said.
Well you have had your chance.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's not about me, didge.

It's about getting everyone on the same page...about thinking about what are the alternatives, and what achievements they want to see.

The classic way to reverse-engineer Karl von Clausewitz' principle that war have a purpose, is to ask someone what do they envision as the 'endgame' or the resulting picture they want.  Von Clausewitz, Karl, On War.  Thinking in those terms is a way of asking what purpose you have for going to war.

See, these days--since 9/11 and 7/7 --most of our motives to start conflicts have been revenge.  Now, that's not a very fulfilling way to spend your day, is it?  

Certain feelings, modernly, are what I call 'wasted" emotions: fear, anger and revenge.  Fear shuts down critical thinking in your head, and there are no sabre-tooth tigers anymore so we don't need to shut down our minds when we confront adversity.  Anger is the same...a purely orgasmic emotion that takes up mind-space when we have better things to do.  Revenge is a form of calculation to waste time...once you kill someone he's gone.  WTF???  What have you gained?

Think of it like a savings account: do you want to waste it all, or do you want to make it work for you?  War based upon revenge is orgasmic: we've just wasted $17-trillion, and nearly 5,000 American lives, make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of other lives, and we have absolutely no endgame.  We are still in the process of something--we don't know what--and we have no endgame.

My former professor, Sheldon Wolin, used to have a saying: thought before action!  I took it to mean you think before moving.  So envisioning an 'endgame' is a form of thought before action.  It is what von Clausewitz cautioned us about: have a purpose before going to war.

And remember: If you fail to plan...you plan to fail!!

Never said it was about you where yet again you are going off nothing I have stated.
You are so desperate to get your point across which is nothing to do with anything I have said.
Well you have had your chance.

Again...it's not about me, didge.

How do you feel about thought before action?

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Never said it was about you where yet again you are going off nothing I have stated.
You are so desperate to get your point across which is nothing to do with anything I have said.
Well you have had your chance.

Again...it's not about me, didge.

How do you feel about thought before action?

Seriously are you paranoid?
Have no care on your views here to be honest Quill being as it has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Not everything is about the US, espcially on my first point, but you knew that and you still detracted to a moot point

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Again...it's not about me, didge.

How do you feel about thought before action?

Seriously are you paranoid?
Have no care on your views here to be honest Quill being as it has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Not everything is about the US, espcially on my first point, but you knew that and you still detracted to a moot point

You are not making sense and I have no idea what you mean.

I was discussing the prospects for the pending, inevitable war with Iran, and the role of Obama and Bush (I presume the past contributions of GWB) leading up to it. That is the title of this thread.

Do you drink or smoke in the eventing? Sometimes, being on the west coast of the US, I find myself talking to people who are in the moddle of their cocktail hour back east. I am just wondering why you are struggling so much in discussing this subject matter. Looking back, you started the thread. Have you forgotten?

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Seriously are you paranoid?
Have no care on your views here to be honest Quill being as it has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Not everything is about the US, espcially on my first point, but you knew that and you still detracted to a moot point

You are not making sense and I have no idea what you mean.  

I was discussing the prospects for the pending, inevitable war with Iran, and the role of Obama and Bush (I presume the past contributions of GWB) leading up to it.  That is the title of this thread.

Do you drink or smoke in the eventing?  Sometimes, being on the west coast of the US, I find myself talking to people who are in the moddle of their cocktail hour back east.  I am just wondering why you are struggling so much in discussing this subject matter.  Looking back, you started the thread.  Have you forgotten?

How utterly infantile and from a senile wally.I suggest you go back and read my first question and again and if you wish to be insulting I can be a thousand times worse you wet leftie. What you want to discuss I have utterly no interest in because its the same irrational and unnatural thing to do around a real threat.
So your choice

I'll wait until others join. Our discussion is getting nowhere.

Original Quill wrote:I'll wait until others join.  Our discussion is getting nowhere.

That happened the moment you replied not engaging my question around why the Muslim nations have not formed a Coalition with a ground force to attack ISIS. You then proceeded to bore me yet again will your irrational and unnatural view of how to deal with a real threat of how to deal with a real threat to human lives.