July 23, 2008
The accidental endorsement
I appear to have endorsed Barack Obama by accident. Brad DeLong - well-known blogger and economist - has a note on his weblog headlined - “Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times endorses Barack Obama”. And WCM asked yesterday - “Gideon’s endorsement of Obama for (global) Commander-in-Chief. Premature? Politically motivated? Deserved? ”
Oddly, despite the headline on my column - “Obama for commander-in-chief” - I wasn’t consciously sitting down to write an endorsement column. What I was aiming to do was to respond to the polls that show that McCain is much more trusted as future commander-in-chief. But c-in-c is not the only role performed by the president.
There are a few subjects on which I prefer McCain. Trade is the most obvious. I also think he has taken sound positions on immigration and on campaign-finance reform. And I accept that McCain was courageous to take an unpopular position on the surge - and that he has been largely vindicated. (Although he was wrong to back the war in the first place.)
But I think that Iran is shaping up as the biggest foreign-policy dilemma facing the next president. And there - as far as I’m concerned - Obama is clearly the better choice. In fact, the McCain position is downright dangerous.
Does that amount to an endorsement of Obama? Just about, I suppose. Although, come November, it’s possible that some other issue will have displaced Iran as the number one concern - or that Obama will have revealed himself as a raving lunatic. For now, however, yes - I’m backing Obama.
Two further notes on this: First, I should admit to a conflict of interest. I put £10 on Obama to win the presidency at 5-1, back in December - ie before the Iowa caucus. So my prescience has given me a small financial stake in his victory. I believe, however, that I can overcome this and maintain my habitual objectivity.
Second this is not an invitation to re-open the “bomb Iran” discussion.
GR: “In fact, the McCain position is downright dangerous.” The McCain positon being that the only thing worse than a third front in the middle east is Iran having the bomb? Or that the Iranians aren’t willing, or it seems capable, of negotiating in good faith, if this weekend’s meeting is anything to go by?
I don’t see how Obama will, despite what he has said on the campaign trail, come to any other conclusion than the one McCain would come to, at least on current experience and projections. I guess you prefer the route - my take is that this is down to Obama’s lack of experience…see how much his position has changed already (unconditional talks etc) - his views are clearly evolving. Obama is no panacea - As David Aaronovitch says in The Times this morning - “we will all end up hating Obama too”.
“Second this is not an invitation to re-open the “bomb Iran” discussion.” I give it about 5 posts….
Posted by: AYC | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentQuote
But I think that Iran is shaping up as the biggest foreign-policy dilemma facing the next president
Unquote
Would you be kind enough to expand on the reasons?
The Iran nuclear issue is only important as a pretext to wage war on Iran, in the same way that Iraq was invaded for its non-existent WMD’s.
In the light of the above, if an American administration is not already intent on war, the Iran issue is not very important, is it?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm | Report this comment+Danger+ !!This mail might contain an anti-semitic remark!!
First: GR shouldn’t bet on people (Damon Runyon’s advice “Horses don’t bet on people, horses have too much sense”). BUT considering got 5-1 against then he should lay his bet now.
Secondly : to Lisa-Helene. GR sent me an email with an ominous title some time ago, but I have no intention of reading it in case it is timed to explode on being opened. Then I sent ONE comment to another FT blog, and it was promptly stamped “Awaiting moderation”. So I think I have been black-balled by GR.
Basically I don’t like confrontations, but when the Zionists on this blog get going they bring out the worst in me. Then it’s time for me to back off.
Posted by: J.J. | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm | Report this commentWell, I’ve always been suspicious of grandiose “we will change the world” ideas and the American decision to remake the Middle East in their own image was sure as grand as they come. And look what happened.
Anyway, I wrote earlier, Obama is the anti Bush foreign policy candidate. If you believe, as I do, that attempts by the ruling hegemon to enforce its will solely by force can only be–at best–counterproductive but more usually disastrous then a candidate that promises not to follow his predecessor’s flawed policy is the better candidate. So merely not doing something is incredibly positive, non action vs. action.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm | Report this commentSorry J.J. but I can see your comment which suggests that you have not been blackballed!
I hope you don’t back off anyway. The blog would be poorer for it.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentPS I don’t see how GR, a foreign policy professional, could possibly endorse a candidate that seems to replicate most of the foreign policy of the Bush admin., oh, a few surface improvements aimed at placating world opinion like closing Guantanimo and maybe some no-no’s directed toward torture, but McCain’s policy towards the world will be–what is the word?–muscular.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm | Report this commentGideon–As I noted yesterday, I agree with you on Obama–at the moment. He seems to demonstrate sound instincts even when one suspects he has not invested the time nor manifested credentials in all of the areas he speaks authoritatively and clearly on, sort of like Clinton and most bloggers (and pundits).
Reports out of Washington late yesterday suggest that opponents of GwB may finally have the ammo to make his and sidekick Dick’s remaining days annoying. A scenario of 911 and Iraq-abuse investigations are not without risk to Democrats.
Firstly, Obama will need to stick to script and soon may become de facto the most sought-after voice of US policy, should the cases unfolding unearth nastiness yet untold.
Secondly, the Democrat chattering classes are likely to feel like the price of gas has tumbled just for those with DNC affinity cards. Someone in the party will need to check their enthusiasm in trying to run Republicans out of town. Many accusations will prove spurious and others will not hold given legitimate national security concerns that will be argued by the White House and supported by 35,000-feet overviews of events now sliding into history.
Nonetheless, I think GwB and Israel will find launching an offensive on Iran to be more unwise in the weeks ahead than was the case a few weeks back when the rumours had taken a step forward. So, I suggest Mr Obama write a new text that speaks of what an Iran may look like when it is reopened for trade and foreign relations.
Meanwhile, Obama’s visit here in Paris may prove to be the most interesting one on this itinerary, although I’ve not fully tracked his words in Jerusalem yesterday.
btw–I thought Susan Aaronson’s FT piece on Obama-McCain and trade stances was sound today.
Posted by: wcm | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Report this commentMary, Mary , Mary! McCain…”muscular”?
With comments like that one need not wonder why the Founding Fathers of democracy in Europe and the US excluded women from their revolutionary manifestos.
While I share concernt that Obama has shown he is at risk of being moved onto agendas that he is told are sacrosanct to the US republic and the State of Israel, he has consistently shown instincts that question the Lobby and the Neocons. He IS in a no-win situation vis-à-vis US domestic politics and foreign affairs.
This may change if the Lobby finds itself at the centre of Congressional investigations in the weeks ahead.
Looking down, I see “boyship” as the second of my post-confirmation keywords. Scary coincidence as I post a clearly sexist response to a very competent fellow blogger.
Posted by: wcm | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm | Report this commentThis being a financial newspaper, I suggest Obama would do well to package McCain’s economic illiteracy with his foreign policy posturing as present it as a composite problem.
I thought this article from yesterday’s Huffington Post is along the right lines:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-sahimi/wish-to-be-poor-and-unemp_b_114193.html
“Wish To Be Poor and Unemployed? Support Military Attacks on Iran”
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Report this commentRecall a few months ago–before Hillary’s brief recovery and Jeremiah Wright’s outbursts–that Chuck Hagel’s name appeared in print as a potential Obama VP. His photo in the FT yesterday exiting discussions between Obama and Maliki in Baghdad gives reason to think such a ticket may yet be in the offing, no?
With a ticket like that, McCain would have to choose between Fiorina or Lieberman. Ummm…
Posted by: wcm | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Report this commentGR: “Second this is not an invitation to re-open the “bomb Iran” discussion.” Sorry I was wrong. It was the second post.
JJ: Not at all surprising that it is those pesky Zionists who are to blame for your comments.
Mary Cunningham: “but McCain’s policy towards the world will be–what is the word?–muscular.” And Obama’s policies will differ from McCain’s in this regard will they? In trade Obama will be more protectionist, in Pakistan he’s going to drop bombs, the list goes on. McCain is simply more experienced and understands the world better. The only difference is Obama trumps him magnificently in presentational skills.
Do you think there will be any widespread fleeing of the country if McCain wins, Mary?
Posted by: AYC | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm | Report this commentWCM, well, your post was sexist, but worse, or maybe as bad, you posted no evidence to the contrary. How about the number of peace-loving liberals amongst McCain’s f-p advisors.
Your “Mary,Mary,Mary” crack reminds me why I tend to hew to the Iowa futures re the election outlook:it cuts through a lot of verbiage from the good and the great and the extremely knowledgeable, like your good self.
AYC (alphabet soup here, eh?):
No existential crisis if McCain is elected. Unlike the UK, US citizens tend not to emigrate, or emigrate much, think there’s about 250,000 in the UK, minuscule. No country really big enough for them.
And AYC, just use my initials until we get to know eachother better, how ’bout it old chap? There’s a good fellow. Good manners for WCM too. Unless you both post your first name and I can reply–oh!–Warren, Warren, Warren or,
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Report this commentsuchlike, right, Alan?
Dear WCM,
I hope Chuck Hagel gets to be Secretary of State, if not VP which is what he wants but probably won’t get as he is a Republican and the odds on the assassination of a black president are quite high and teh Democratic party won’t want to win the lection and end up with a Republican president!
Admittedly, being a decorated war veteran and somebody who called Iraq right and given his age, he seems almost tailor-made to run with Obama.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm | Report this commentAYC says:
“McCain understands the world better [than Obama]”.
Rats! I could’ve sworn it was the other way ’round. Oh, well…
Posted by: Paskalis | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm | Report this comment>>AYC: “McCain is simply more experienced and understands the world better.”
Please explain your understanding of McCain’s vision.
I suggest he has demonstrated little more than sound reactions more often than bad ones. That merits some credit, but is it sufficient qualification for President?
McCain is like a jock student from decent parents and with quick sense of the field. He is lost, however, when he needs to work an assignment without a team. His self-assessment of his comprehension of economics alone should disqualify him, even if Herbert Hoover’s expertise failed his country as seriously as Greenspan’s failed it.
Remember McCain’s pre-Senate professional history is on par with that of used-car salesman. Being a POW failed to earn him a good career job when he returned to Phoenix.
Your real issue with Obama has little to do with his comparative experience. Transparent tactics.
Posted by: wcm | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Report this commentRemembering how John Kerry’s war record was rubbished (seemingly entirely unfairly), I wonder if the Dems get to p*ss on McCain’s record just as hard.
From what I read, there seem to ne holes and inaccuracies aplenty in our war hero’s story.
Posted by: Pacifist | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm | Report this comment>>Ms. “MC”
McCain’s foreign-policy team’s bright lights have been those who passed Lieberman’s test. I would not consider them “peace-loving liberals”, unless you apply that term to AYC, et al.
One was not obliged to issue their posts under a name they seem not to like, except when used amongst (muscular? or vascularly enhanced?) intimates. You will always be Mary to me, and I’m not in neither of the categories mentioned.
Posted by: wcm | July 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Report this commentplease forgive the double negative and this algasema-like apology. I know Mary will pick up on it without consulting her Fowler’s.
Posted by: wcm | July 23rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Report this commentFair enough,W?CM
Forgot to mention that the fall in gasoline/oil prices is possibly not the plus for the GOP one might assume. A fall because of slackening demand usually signals the onset of economic slowdown & that is not a plus for the party in power. OTOH a supply side shock (new discoveries) is a positive. IMO the fall is more the unwinding of speculative positions along with decreasing demand. It reflects a bad economy & that is a negative for a new Rep. in the executive.
I would say the question is not whether Obama and the Dems will win, but by what margin. As well, how big the Dems will sweep the legislature. That leaves only the judiciary in conservative hands, but since Bush & Co. were not genuine conservatives that is only just.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Report this commentCool
IMO US oil prices have benefited marginally, as compared with Europe, for example, from unique long-term contracts negotiated by the US with suppliers. There are some politics in this, no doubt, but limited all the same. I would not judge observed drops in the short term as driven by parallel drops in demand. Canadian sands and bets that the Iran will not be bombed and the geopolitical stage will calm a bit are greater factors.
While the aggregate costs of saving Fannie and Freddie will be something for quants to sort out in university labs a decade from now, the general buzz seems to be that the worse is over/nearly over in US and global financial markets. Further adjustments in housing and jobs are long overdue, but are complicated by decades of underinvestment in plant and infrastructure. The US has had a reprieve, thanks largely to US financial institutions latitude to dance. Near term setbacks in global markets may come from other overextended corners of the world.
The economy is killing the Republicans, but the Democrats have failed to demonstrate that they are not still working with Paul Samuelson textbooks.
Posted by: wcm | July 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm | Report this commentThey don’t need to. They don’t need to do or demonstrate anything. All they need to be is not-Bush. If I were Obama’s campaign manager I would just show picture after picture of McCain with GWB, McCain with Cheney, McCain with Rumsfeld. Heck, they could leave out McCain and just keep bombarding the helpless, hapless electorate with pics of Rumsfeld.
But that would be cruel and unusual punishment and doesn’t the Geneva Convention forbid that? Oh wait! Bush tore it up.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this commentObama is going to win. MCCain sounds more out of touch each day…
The press coverage of Obama in Israel that I am watching as yet to mention a 40 year occupation…
I am not sure these bulldozer attacks should be termed “terrorism” …this was a copy cat …and probably more appropriate to term it “going postal” or rather “going bull dozer” !(we had a flurry of attacks leading to significant amounts of deaths by postal employees in US Post Offices a few years back …due to personal rage, unhappiness and madness) Palestinian society has been totally disfigured by this occupation…I wonder if either of these men (the bulldozer atacks) had their family homes bulldozed to the ground due to a relative being accused of taking part in a terroist act…
Now J.J. you cant take e-mails from GR and deletions personally…even I was deleted once! and I consider myself a very good blog citizen!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Report this commentIs “not being Bush” enough of a selling point for Obama to win?
After all, McCain is not Bush either as John Major was not Thatcher.
Posted by: Pacifist | July 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentWell, the GOP must wish they were like Thatcher/Major. But George W. is no Thatcher. Additionally the Dems don’t have the economic reputation that Labour had in 1992. In fact, you might say losing in that year was good for Labour as it demonstrated the electorate judged still that they couldn’t be trusted to run the economy. Hence John Smith, then Blair and Brown were able to enact the necessary reforms and win huge in 1997.
This is all from me.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm | Report this commentA nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle East, but around the world,” he said. “Whatever remains of our Non-Proliferation Treaty would begin to disintegrate.”
Not my words, but those of Senator Obama, speaking today in Israel. I rest my case, m’lud.
Posted by: AYC | July 23rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm | Report this commentGideon, you say that McCain’s position on immigration is sound. But which of his positions are you referring to? I presume that you mean his courageous and principled sponsorship, along with Democratic Senator Kennedy (and supported by the White House as well), of last year’s failed bipartisan “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill with its “amnesty” provisions for qualifying illegal immigrants.
But the Arizona Senator has since recanted his support of this bill, just has Galileo recanted his heretical heliocentric views, and for much the same reasons, since McCain would have been “burned at the stake” by his own right wing Republican base, infuriated by his tolerant approach to Latino immigrants.
You also commend Senator McCain for his support of campaign finance reform, but he has repeatedly praised the same Supreme Court justices who helped to strike down parts of his finance reform law as unconstitutional, and he has promised to appoint more judges like them.
These are just two examples of ways in which John McCain, the presidential candidate, is quite different from the Senator John McCain who once commanded wide respect in both parties.
Therefore, in discussing Senator McCain’s positions, it would be helpful to be specific as to time, because his “straight talk” principles are subject to frequent, moment-to moment changes.
Posted by: algasema | July 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Report this commentSorry, I meant “just as Galileo”, not “just has Galileo”.
Posted by: algasema | July 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Report this commentA grudging, accidental endorsement for the accidental Democratic nominee who might yet accidentally become President. Obama seems to be entering the White House by simply opening the door.
Newton was once asked how he had come up with his ideas — “by thinking about them”, he answered. How had Obama become president? By running for president.
Posted by: RCS | July 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Very few recent American presidents are impressive figures.
America produces endless numbers of highly intelligent, energetic people but few of them enter politics or last the course. They go into business, finance and academia instead. It is probably not surprising given the corruption of the system.
BTW, I hear Tzipi has been called a traitor by Olmert
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Report this commentP,
Olmert is hopefully on his way out, despite his Mugabe-like determination to cling to his position. He truly is an accidental prime minister.
Calling Zipi (GWB’s rendering of her name) a traitor is not too sensational by Israeli standards.
Posted by: RCS | July 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm | Report this commentOn a slightly different note, I just saw a Washington Post article quoting Obama as saying that “Israel is one of Israel’s strongest friends” or something to that effect. Isn’t it nice when a candidate says something that all of us can agree with?
Posted by: algasema | July 23rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
I think you have it mixed up: The second ‘Israel’ should come first and the first ‘Israel’ should come second.
Posted by: RCS | July 23rd, 2008 at 8:15 pm | Report this commentIf Obama’s position on Iran is as stated by GR then i am in general agreement with GR’s tenor.
However, Mary Cunningham’s first comment on this thread also seems to me correct:
If you believe in “Humanitarian Wars” justified by position papers from the CFR or The Carnegie you vote for Obama.
If you believe in “Preventive Wars” and american
supremecy in general justified by position papers
from the “Heritage” you vote for McCain.
If you are at the receiving end of these acts eg
Iraq etc you suffer a true genocide: One million orphans, mainly Sunnis in an attempt to prevail.
Sunday’s FT carries a review of Ahmed Rachid’s book by Quentin Peel under the title:
“Intervention Farce”. The book’s title is “Descent into Chaos”: How the war against Islamic Extremism is Being Lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia’
However for the people experiencing american policy on the ground the farce is lived as tragedy.
Obama went to Israel to-day and he repeated his view that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel.
In fact the realist position is, that Jerusalem could be the undivided capital city of both states. East Jerusalem could be the administrative center (with the necessary structures) for the palestinians and the affairs of the municipality of Jerusalem could be run in common. He said none of this.
So i remain pessimistic irrespective of the outcome of the elections. The US will be forced to change course from the structural changes that
Posted by: Cassandra | July 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Report this commentglobalisation has wrought: CHINDIA, Scarcity of Primary materials,general anarchy and instability, financial implosion of the investment banks and rise of SWFs etc etc.
It is late following a dinner here, but I have just read Cassandra’s and other posts, caught up on Obama’s comments in Israel, and read Juan Cole’s piece in Salon on Obama’s Afghan policy statements.
I too am pessimistic the Obama can get it right. I’m reasonably certain McCain cannot. I’m not sure which of the two faces dominating general media will be the more annoying. I’m not sure which would make the world a more troubled place.
Obama’s Afghan policy is in step with the Neocon’s strategy for US hegemony over Central Asia. Even his once lead foreign policy advisor, Brzezinski, has publicly said this is a plan for failure.
His Israel comments are taken from the same pages. His failure to add “weapons” after “nuclear” in the context of Iran takes the issue back to the Israeli/Lobby base line.
A few hours ago, I lamented how this thread had digressed like all others into a tiresome debate on Israel, when Gideon had tried to put Iran forward as Obama’s biggest challenge. Perhaps, indeed, he rightly understood that Israel was no longer Obama’s challenge (and that Israel was sufficiently comfortable and possibly even now a bit enthusiastic about having this new face on their payroll). But, as these tiresome threads confirm, Israel is still a root problem for the rest of us.
If Obama cannot offer a new vision for US policy, then where are we going?
The US is using other people’s money. For what? Certainly not to improve the lives of its taxpayers or make things that other people want to buy. Other people should start calling in their accounts.
Posted by: wcm | July 24th, 2008 at 1:42 am | Report this commentWell of course one ends up discussing Israel …it is impossible to discuss the region especially now Iran’s profile post US invasion of Iraq without discussing Israel…
Cassandra …he has pulled back from his AIPAC statement on Jerusalem, (at the time I poste dhere that when I heard it I almost fell off my chair)…leaving its status as negotiable…
However, ther eis an article on Haaretz that claims “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama pledged to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Wednesday that if elected, he will coordinate his policy on Iran with Israel.” IF THIS IS CORRECT HE WILL HAVE QUALIFY IT TO!…it’s good he went into politics…I would never hire him as an attorney…he is is not very judicious in many of his statements …so he ends up constantly saying “what I meant was” …
In any event, whoever is doing is ME advising really missed an opportunity here with this trip to Israel and Ramallah…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 5:23 am | Report this commentGood Grief! ..he has recycled Dennis Ross!…something did not feel Obamaish about the last 24 hours…now I know why…well Samantha, what can I say…you are missed…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 5:47 am | Report this commentFrankly no one is in a position to predict how Obama will behave if he becomes President. I doubt if Obama knows it himself.
Posted by: winnowed.blogspot.com | July 24th, 2008 at 6:34 am | Report this commentObama makes a speech in Berlin today. I hope it will be a great one and a historic one.
(At all costs, he should not say, like Kennedy “Ich bin ein Berliner” (ein Berliner still means a jam doughnut!).
Merkel expects the good relationship with the USA to continue if he becomes president.
It’s hard to be optimistic about Obama as president. The USA is in a crisis - the debasement of the dollar is unbelievable.
I fear Obama will be manipulated and sidelined by the forces of darkness.
Who will be the candidates’ running mates seems to me to be of great importance.
Here’s a video of the preparations taking place for BO’s visit to Berlin.
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub0D783DBE76F14A5FA4D02D23792623D9/Doc~E3D6B21F63C3E4B9698B59C1A09BA0A6F~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html
Posted by: J.J. | July 24th, 2008 at 7:44 am | Report this comment“Obama’s Afghan policy is in step with the Neocon’s strategy for US hegemony over Central Asia. Even his once lead foreign policy advisor, Brzezinski, has publicly said this is a plan for failure.”
True, but more true:
“Frankly no one is in a position to predict how Obama will behave if he becomes President. I doubt if Obama knows it himself.”
In regard to any foreign - USA, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc. - continued intervention militarily overtly or covertly in Central Asia, the intervention is fruitless and counterproductive as millennia of such intervention shows. The continued USA military occupation whether of Okinawa, South Korea, Europe East and West, not to mention the worse of all cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, is lunacy from any reasonable, common-sensical perspective. Why commenters (I can understand why politicians do so) continue to talk about the irrelevant minutiae of troop surges and timetables for withdrawal and new tactics for embracing the occupied people is beyond me. It is all the equivalent of the medieval theologians debating “important” issues such as how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Trivial nonsense.
The USA should have no military or quasi-military presence in these countries at all as of tomorrow or as soon as withdrawal can be achieved practically. Modest advisory military presence where both parties gain something, okay, but continued large-scale occupation is lucidrous.
The internecine warfare among competing criminal elements in Afghanistan as an example will occupy most of their time, so other countries in fact have little to fear of the potential for incubation of plots to undermine those other countries in some ways. Death by terror may be spectacular as best illustrated by the live broadcasting of the destruction of the World Trade towers, but in the overall scheme of life and death and causes of death, it is of minute importance.
Far better results of effort and spending would be yielded by preventing smoking and reducing highway deaths anywhere in the world to mention just two of hundreds of more important topics on death and destruction than terrorism. Those deaths are just as horrid, random, final and in far higher numbers.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | July 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am | Report this commentWell, Wendell Murray, go back to your first course in politics and dig out the three primary functions of the state: 1) defence of the realm, 2) maintainance of law and order, 3) final adjudicator . Protecting its citizens from being blown up on the tube or blown up in their place of work is one of any gov’t’s prime functions. Where we probably agree is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq, who posed no threat to the West but did pose a threat to Israel, was probably not a good way of delivering protection to Americans and western Europeans; it probably had exactly the opposite effect, at least in Europe and (certainly)Muslim states. Nor will any American-sponsored bombing of Iran achieve much in the way of protecting European and Islamic-country citizens, although, again, it will alleviate pressure on Israel.
Let’s be honest and admit Israel is an American protectorate and likely to remain so for the next half century ( at least! ). Additionally, even without this explicit backing from the US, Israel would be able to survive in its present state–basically as an apartheid state, remember it’s 60 years old and has existed as an univited occupier of the West Bank for 40 of them–almost indefinitely. Obama will not be able to change any of this, but maybe–just maybe–he might be able to defuse some of the dangerous passions of the region. We should all hope so. What was that title???
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am | Report this commentRereading GR’s article, It is hard to disagree with his emphasis on the importance of Iran as a foreign policy question. But is not the whole “Is Barack Obama qualified to be Commander in Chief?” issue really anything more than just an elaborate diversion, thought up by clever McCain strategists, of the attention of America’s badly informed, easily manipulated, dangerously complacent and, let’s be honest, in many instances overtly or covertly racist electorate from the far more pressing domestic issues of income inequality rapidly approaching third world levels, anti-immigrant racism and, above all the erosion of our democracy?
Whether or not Barack Obama is qualified to be president (and he not only is, but could turn out to be one of the greatest we have ever had) should depend a great deal more on these crucial, fundamental issues than on whatever statement he may be forced into at the moment in order to pacify the pro-Israel lobby in the US (which I oppose just as strongly as I oppose those Iranian leaders who may be threatening to use Israel’s many and well known shortcomings, repeated ad nauseam in so many posts on this and other recent GR blogs, as an excuse to commit nuclear genocide against the Jewish state).
Posted by: algasema | July 24th, 2008 at 10:47 am | Report this commentMs. Mary Cunningham raises many rational and logical points which, of course, have no place in the madhouse of human relations.
Calling Israel “an American protectorate,” however, is an optimistic oversimplification of a complex and bewildering relationship, a singularity in world history.
Intriguing as that relationship is, we are not allowed to discuss it, or the war that binds it, openly and objectively in the United States without severe condemnation and often equally severe personal consequences.
One has to turn to the Israeli media for that freedom.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am | Report this commentDear Algasema,
Your last sentence shows that you are complicit in your own stupefaction and would rather listen to Fox TV than to American professors with deep knowledge of linguistics.
I suppose the tragedy of America’s foreign policy is exactly because of the way Americans are. They have very little idea of what really goes on elsewhere and are afraid of finding out the truth about what they are fed by the corporate media to which they are addicted.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am | Report this comment>>algasema: “…Israel’s many and well known shortcomings…”
What is Starbucks putting in those lattes that makes so many Americans speak like girl scouts making a presentation?
The Israeli media is interesting this morning. Moderates are saying, just as I expected, that maybe they can get a good ride on the back of Obama’s sophomoric charm machine. Nonetheless, they remain sceptical.
Obama’s backers have taken a big gamble handing over the policy dossier to Ross, et al. Showing no more substance than a junior staffer under Clinton when he worked 24/7 to help agree the famous Swiss-cheese map that his boss then handed to Yasser Arafat with the words, “This is the best deal you’ll ever get.”, Ross is clearly unqualified to bring anything new to the table. I’d rather have the female lawyer who was sweating in the toilet from the film Michael Clayton representing the US position.
Obama does not need the US Jewish vote. If he could demonstrate that those who formed his core base in the past winter are still motivated to come out and vote for him, and represent snowballing support founded on discontent with the present course, then AIPAC would have its work cut for it. Its job in the next few months should be focussed on keeping its role in steering US foreign policy (and spending US taxpayer funds) out of investigations that are long overdue.
If he loses the support of “thinking” youth and the discontented middle classes, he will lose. This trip is not reinforcing his core support and points to the prospect of a fatlly low turnout in November.
The Israeli media reports disappointment at Obama’s grasp of specifics. I am disappointed at his failure to fully grasp his potential role in this critical turn in history.
Provided their service providers can finance the connections, political blogging has a long and miserable future. With parallels to the online pleasure industry, also a major sector in the Tel Aviv economy, it goes nowhere.
Posted by: wcm | July 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am | Report this commentMary is giving us another 50 yrs to survive! All is not lost then!
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am | Report this commentHey P,
From a quick google search one can find Linguistic Professors giving different & opposing interpretations of Ahmadinejad’s “Israel must be wiped off the map” speech.
One should also note that “Israel must be wiped off the map” was the original English Translation of the state-controlled “Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting” (IRIB)
Perhaps Algasema was listening to them rather than Fox TV
J
Posted by: Jalipa | July 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am | Report this commentDear J,
Mistranslations happen and then they get corrected. Should iran be wiped off the map because of a mistranslation?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Report this comment@Pacifist,
Iran shud not be wiped off the map - its ability to build a nuclear device shud.
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm | Report this commentDear Asher,
Well said!
כל הכבוד
Posted by: RCS | July 24th, 2008 at 12:16 pm | Report this commentI am not an expert on Iran. I feel confident in what I hear from those closer to this issue that Iran’s primary objective is to join the global economy on its own power. Not with a government serving as a proxy state of the US (as is the case of Iraq and, at least at the international level, of most Gulf states), but with its full sovereignty intact.
Independent nuclear power is a critical component to this strategy.
Sadly, their internal political debate struggles far too much with the role of Islam in its society, the level of strictures that should be in its laws, the encumbrances they present economically, etc. Like in the US, a debate about bombing Israel is a convenient distraction from real issues within its economy and communities.
Discussing translations is pointless.
Ahmadinezad may not be an internationalist, and he certainly is a religious and sectarian conservative, but nothing in his bio supports the thesis that he is a demagogue.
He has credibility that the US/AIPAC media refuses to discuss. As governor of the Kurdish provinces of Iran, he stood at the lead of fierce opposition to Saddam Hussein in the face of the worst atrocities in that miserable US proxy war. To McCain’s claims of being a war hero, most Iranians will respond that they know war heros and McCain is not one.
Iran’s power is divided between its Revolutionary Guards, the Supreme Leader, reformers like Rafsanjani, and the populist Ahmadinezad. The latter’s failure to get hold of the economy continues to cut into his domestic support; his stance–seen locally as principled–on the US and Israeli Likudite hegemony keeps him in power.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is serving as Ahmadinezad’s mentor. Most–including the Supreme Leader–would welcome the day the latter can step or be put aside and the public will support a reformer.
From the Iranian side that day will not come so long as Israel remains a paranoid, non-compliant, nuclear-armed state with US policy firmly under its grip. (I’m not sure a metaphor that suggests the US has balls to be grasped works anymore.)
The US has never grasped its role in supporting Castro. They see no relation between its oilcos, Citibank and Chavez’ power. They never understood how much their self-righteousness supported Russia’s failing regimes in the 1970s and 1980s when their economies were in a shambles beyond the comprehension of US intelligence.
Or perhaps there are those in the US who do understand these things. Afterall, it was the US that bankrolled (through Swiss banks) Hitler’s purchase of fuel to get his tanks out of Russia (at Stalin’s demand) in 1943. Then the US played to use its leverage to create a powerful post-War role for itself. Today it is arguable it is trying some Machiavelian schemes to extend what is becoming a less and less supportable geopolitical and financial game.
Few in George Bush’s regime speak or think like girl scouts. Yet neither do they seem have balls.
Posted by: wcm | July 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Report this commentPaskalis,
Re: protectorate status of Israel
Well, I disagree. It think it is pretty straightforward situation & when I grasped the relationship for what it was it clarified my thinking enormously. If I can come to that conclusion unaided–well, as unaided as someone who reads, thinks, writes &tc. can be–then surely others must think the same way. You probably would know better than I the situation in the US, but even if Americans are forbidden to discuss it, the inhabitants of the ME especially and elsewhere show no such inhibition. And FWIW it’s the former’s opinion that counts, not yours and not mine.
RCS & al,
Rhetorical games and taking quotes out of context. Why am I not surprised? I wrote fifty years at least and that,even without the explicit backing of the US, the situation as it is now–an apartheid state–could continue indefinitely.
But again, my opinion is not worth much. Pacifist;s OTOH is worth a lot. So this is all from me.
Regards
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pm | Report this commentRCS, Asher, et al. Israel’s REFUSAL to comply with any international governance regarding nuclear arms or power leaves Israel WITHOUT a voice as to the rights of other nations.
Posted by: wcm | July 24th, 2008 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentre: protectorate status
Absolutely. Since 1982, US policy has explicitly been to follow Israel’s lead on regional matters, particularly the Palestinians, and to check it when it compromises US interests in other regions/spheres. Iran would be deemed both, as oil represents a strategic US interest in the general agreement, but the Neocons have gone full side with Israel, which is now fully a part of US national security interests.
Posted by: wcm | July 24th, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Report this commentInnocence and child-like naivete can be so charming in some people that one feels himself beastly to disturb it.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 24th, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Report this commentI don’t believe that Gideon Rachman, who is very reputable FT’s chief foreign affairs columnist can allow his-self to endorse the US presidential candidate Barack Obama making the statement: “(global) Commander-in-Chief.” Of course, Gideon Rachman has to stay calm and not let his-self to be involved in the speculations about the “Commander-in-Chief.” However, my personal impression is that there was nothing said to be worry about.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | July 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Report this comment@Viktor O. Ledenyov
perhaps you think too much of Gideon Rachman. Is he a serious columnist/analyst when he determines unequivocally that “McCain position is downright dangerous” and then covers by “this is not an invitation to re-open the “bomb Iran” discussion”
What’s “downright dangerous” in respect of McCain then? His greenish position on the hoax of Global Warming?
No, what Gideon Rachman sees as dangerous is his position on attacking Iran, which perhaps masks a narrative of the mainstream media - to make life difficult (perhaps even impossible) for Israel. Anti-Zionists rejoice!
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 1:20 pm | Report this commentDear AsheRcs,
Iran has not pursued a nuclear device and thousands of man-hours of inspection by IAEA have not shown to the contrary. (Not to speak of the American NIE.
The accusation against Iran is simply a casus belli of the same people who invaded the Iraqis’ non-existent WMD’s in pursuit of ulterior motives.
imho nothing in the Middle East will be resolved unless somebody in America can stan up to the Zionist lobby and dissuade Israel from her maximalist amitions in the Middle East.
Is Obama that man? All evidence suggests that he is not. Just another shallow, ambitious talking head to add to a long list of recent American presidents.
No doubt they are dancing the Hava Nageela in Tel Aviv whilst stealing more land.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentAs they say in poker, “I’m out”. Same old cards now.
Posted by: wcm | July 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm | Report this comment@Pacifist
It’s 2013 now, in the previous 5 years, the international community with the help of Russia and China shielded Iran from pressure, the EU representatives emitted countless metric tonnes of CO2 by jetting to and from friendly Iran and the spineless Israeli government did nothing to stop Iran. In the spring the Islamic Republic triumphantly declared that it successfully exploded a nuclear device in the Northern Desert.
In October 2013, on Jewish Atonement Day, the 40 years anniversary of a surprise attack by Arab countries on Israel in 1973 in which they almost overran Israeli army, Iran launches 5 Al-Shihab missiles on Israel. 2 first missiles are shot-down by the Arrow system but three get through, two plutonium devices 5 times more powerful than the Nagasaki bomb explode above main population and industrial centres – rendering eastern Tel Aviv area and the industrial zone of Haifa to a nuclear desert. In an instant, hundreds of thousand of civilians are killed (including tens of thousand Palestinian “martyrs”).
President Obama, the EU, Russia and China offer condolences to the Israeli people but “urge restraint” because “rash response will only lead to further bloodshed”. But it is too late. Israel has no stomach to hit back and in any case, the shocked country is easily overrun by forces from “friendly” Egypt (thahadiyye has ended, you see) and divisions of Iranian army that were stationed for years on the Golan heights that were returned to Syria in 2011in exchange for a piece of paper (the de-militarisation of the Golan was ignored and violated by the Syrians introducing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards) and photo-ops.
Pacifist, WCN and Hail Mary rejoice (“they had it coming, the Israelis are also responsible for the deaths 50,000 Palestinians that died in the nuclear attack – because after all, the Israelis brought it on the poor Palestinians” writes Mary). But a blogger called Enrique, has a dissonance. He is twitching in his Latin American chair. After all, he did write 5 years ago on an FT blog that ““wiping” is rethoric…and ridiculous as Israel has around 200 nuclear heads and the support of the US, UK and French Armies…a Defense Budget 120 times larger than Iran.” He also wrote there that “Iran has not invaded any nation during the last centuries while Israel has invaded and attacked Lebanon a couple of times”. How could he be so wrong? He scratches his head and solves this cognitive dissonance by having another cup of strong Arabica and agreeing that the Israelis had it coming. He has to go to work.
Now back to serious analysis. I hope that Mr. Rachman, the chief foreign affairs columnist of a libertarian publication is reading my post. FT prides itself on being objective and rational, but Mr. Rachman is not doing what any financial person must do – a “cost/benefits/risk analysis of all possible outcomes and alternatives”. He just says “attack on Iran will be a disaster” – sure, but what’s the alternative?
The only assumption in my analysis is one that can not be disputed – the value that one puts on one’s survival (and for that matter, the survival of one’s family and state) is infinite, and thus, the cost of losing it is also infinite. As any rational person will agree, the expected cost of an event is the cost of all outcomes multiplied by their probability. Therefore, if you assume that the probability of the above scenario of Iran attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon is more than zero, then the “cost” of the expected outcome (infinite) is unacceptable for Israel and under rational analysis it has to strike Iran to prevent this outcome at all costs, including the costs of conventional weapons reprisals by Iran (being wounded is better than being dead).
Now the only issue that someone can rationally disagree with me is the probability of such scenario, not the analysis. If you believe that the probability is zero, then you have all the rights to say that it will be a mistake to attack Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But again, it is the prerogative of Israel to assess this probability, not someone in Moscow, Rio or the Home Counties.
However, if you wish for the disappearance of Israel, then yes, you should try and persuade everybody to keep on talking with Iran, that an attack on Iran will bring “incalculable consequences”, “set the whole region on fire”, etc. (remember the same bankrupt terminology used by the Left before Iraq 2003 campaign? Where is it now?) and that it will be a dreadful mistake and that yes, Iran is a peace loving nation that “has not invaded any nation during the last centuries”.
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Report this commentDear Asher,
I can’t believe that you are serious in what you wrote. I suspect you are winding us up and rolling about laughing at our gullibility to answer you joke post.
However, if your hallucinations are really what you think and not a joke,, then I hope that you have access to some decent psychiatric care.
In sympathy,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Report this commentIs it not Iranic that the regional expansionist bully, who is causing consternation in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, airing anti-Egyptian series on state television and helping to disect the Lebanon in pursuance of a foothold on the Mediterranean, should accuse others of ‘maximalist ambitions’?
I think I will go Hava a nargila.
Posted by: RCS | July 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Report this comment@Pacifist,
go on, fisk my post.
“fisking” is defined (partly) on Wikipedia as:
“A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a [virulent leftie] British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment.”
The second sentence of the definition above is key, I think that you, Mary and WCM will not fulfill the “factual, not handwaving” part and so, you cant fisk me (at least not in a really stilish way).
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentDear Asher,
How else can I “Fisk” (a great journalist btw) the first three paragraphs of your post except to say that you have no talent for scienec fiction writing and should stick to your day job?
It is quite pathetic really. You have no convincing evidence that:
A-) Iran has nuclear weapons or is developing them.
B-) Even if Iran acquires one, they would use it. (Would be crazy, given the retaliatory powers of USrael).
Yet, you beat on your war drum like an energetic monkey anyway….
All that you are saying is that anybody whom you dislike should die.
Ridiculous, or what?
מזל טוב
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentP
Paskalis,
Iran is fomenting trouble in Iraq (majority Sh’ite), has a dependency in Allawi (a sect of Shia) Syria (now pathetically trying to assert a modicum of an independent foreign policy), a full client state-within-a-state in South Lebanon and supports Hamas in Gaza. The potential is far greater: there is a Shia majority population in the major oil-producing regions of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. All Iran needs to cement its dominance is a nuclear ‘deterrence’.
Posted by: RCS | July 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm | Report this commentWell Barak just gave a security briefing to Netanyahu. (normally a PM gives the opposition one when needed). Olmert will be out shortly. Livni is next in line and has already stated she will call for a Unity government (Barak-Netanyahu/Labour-Likud) and then there is a real possibilty on a strike against Iran. Especially, as the next Prez of the US has more or less given the okay…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm | Report this commentDear L-H L,
I don’t think the Israelis want to attack Iran. They want the US to do the job for them a la Iraq.
Admittedly female prime ministers are more warlike (Maggie, Indira and Golda all stroppy girlies he he he!!)
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Report this comment@Pacifist
“You have no convincing evidence that:
A-) Iran has nuclear weapons or is developing them.
B-) Even if Iran acquires one, they would use it. (Would be crazy, given the retaliatory powers of USrael).”
Indeed, I have no evidence to prove you’re A- and B-. But in case of an uncertainty over a vital piece of information, I assign probability to potential outcomes. I don’t know whether there will be an accident every time I drive or ride a motor vehicle, still the probability is there, and so I wear a seatbelt.
But what made me laugh really, is you implying that Iran is not “crazy”… A country that is theocratically ruled by a religion that glorifies suicidal murder of enemy civilians will not be “crazy” to gamble that Israel will be reigned in by President Obama?
Facts pls, Logical Arguments pls, rational assessments of future alternatives – these are not the strong sides of left-wingers’ debate. They go all barmy and develop yellow froth at the mouth when faced with balanced and civilised arguments. See fantastic article about this
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/memory_and_the_left_1.html
Dear Asher,
In your paragragraph one you admit that you have no facts to back up your arguments and in your third paragraph you demand facts and logical arguments!
My (soon to be former) wife argues exactly like that! May I be bold enough to enquire about your gender?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentOK, RCS and Asher, I give up:
What’s the name of the country that’s a regional expansionist bully dominated by religion?
It’s not Tibet, is it?
Posted by: Paskalis | July 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm | Report this commentP,
Sorry but Barak and Netanyahu agree on little but that a strike against Iran now is needed…
Israel knows US wont help overtly….but we would be there in some capacity
Anyway enough of ME on to Europe and Britain…
Nothing new from Obama with Ross scripting his movements there …same old same old for the last 25 years…
Speaking of scripts…Interesting insights to Obama tour in Le Monde:
http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2008/07/24/la-tournee-presidentielle-du-candidat-obama_1076604_829254.html#ens_id=904503
But aids are promsing a “substantive speech” in Germany…(I suppose calling for more EU troops in Afghanistan is deemed substantive)
We shall see….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Report this commentI think it is over for MCain unless Obama makes a glaring mistake…terrible week for McCain… sounding like he is desperate and unpresidential in his attacks on Obama…Olympics will suck up most of first half of August…then DEM convention which many will turn into to as it signal the generational turn over and have entertaining moments…even if the Reeps could put together an interesting convention…few will be watching in September…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Report this comment@Paskalis
“What’s the name of the country that’s a regional expansionist bully dominated by religion?”
Easy - Iran:
Expansionism:
1. Iran lays claims to the whole of the Gulf to the point of scaring the manure out of the fat burgers of the emirates and the house of Saud
2. Iran exports its Islamic revolution ideas to Uzbekitan and Tajikistan, supports the insurgents in Iraq and bankrolls a state within a state in Lebanon and a terrorist statelet (Hamas in Gaza).
Religion: Iran is a theocratic state where the supreme leader is not elected by the populace.
Bully: for yrs Iran calls the bluff of the fat and slow bunny that is the EU cos they know that EU will never do aything other than talk. Why make any compromises then? Iran’s President openly calls for destruction of another country (unless you want to fisk the translation? maybe he meant that Israel shud be “wiped clean” - you know he has this Tehran accent of Pharsi that is difficult to unerstand).
QED?
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Report this commentOh, Asher, more likely Tibet than Iran.
In a restaurant in Topeka, Kansas, The Dahli Lama was overheard to say he wanted to, “tell Israel where it’s at”, although some people claim it’s a mistranslation, and he was actually ordering okra with his vermicelli.
Either way, the existential threat was there.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentHi Asher,
I guess facts are strangers to you.
- Iran has no claims to the whole of the Gulf but a standard-issue border dispute over three small, largely uninhabited islands typical of what British colonialism always left behind to ensure instability in its wake.
-)Ideas are not exported in the way you suggest. If there is fertile ground, people will adopt those ideas. Iran does not even have borders with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, how could Iran want to expand there?
- The Iraqi resistance is not Iran’s work. If Iran could destabilise Iraq, they would have done it during the 8 year war with Saddam.
However, the US bribing and arming of the Sunni tribes will cause a major blowback in the West, bigger than Al Qaeda. Americans are stupid (but you Israelis know that and ride them like donkeys!)
- Hamas and Hezbollah are local responses to Israeli State Terrorism and not creations of Iran. Stop terrorism and apartheid committed by Israel if you want a permanent remedy.
- Don’t forget that Israel is the religiously based (entirely artificial) state not Iran which has been there long before Islam.
- Your suggestion that Iran bullied the EU is ridiculous. How can Iran bully the UK and France with all their nukes and armies, navies and air forces?
Indeed it is the EU that has wasted Iran’s time by making dishonest promises that caused Iran to delay its nuclear programme for 2 years but did not deliver on those promises.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentAsher: “The only assumption in my analysis is one that can not be disputed – the value that one puts on one’s survival (and for that matter, the survival of one’s family and state) is infinite…” absolutely agree.
And that has what is so flawed in Mary, Mary Quite Contrary’s posts, especially where she says “Watch what they do, don’t listen to what they say. In this case you need to watch migration. If non-Israeli Jews are more frightened of the outside world than the threat vs. Israel they will emigrate to Israel. If Israeli’s really are fearful of the state of affairs inside their nuclear stronghold then the opposite will happen.”
Personally, I think this is cod psychology at its most dangerous. To extrapolate what may be a reasonable assumption in one specific setting - the markets and the flows of money - to another which is quite different demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the human condition, a wilful disregard of it in this particular case, or a total lack of empathy. Indeed, her argument, which at first blush is inherently plausible, is in fact insidious.
I wish she would tell me where she would expect people to migrate to? Does Mary think that Jews would not fight for what they believe in, their homes, their families? Perhaps because the “stole the land”, they have no vested interest and as historic wanderers are able to decamp easily? The lack of emigration can only mean that as she says they do not believe Iran is going to get the bomb. Or maybe it just demonstrates the inherent stubbornness of the Jew; lacking any sort of honour or strength of character, the Jew should be expected to flee at the first sign of trouble - isn’t he only brave when sending an F16 to attack children and defenceless civilians, Mary?
“..there doesn’t seem to be any widespread fleeing of the country.” Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, Mary?
Posted by: AYC | July 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this comment@Pacifist
“the religiously based (entirely artificial) state not Iran which has been there long before Islam”
All it takes to bring a leftie like you to a boiling point is to calmly, without innuendoes and insults, stick to logic and point them to their invriable incosnstencies and gaffes. Check your logic, Pacifist, do you mean that Iran is not a religiously based state because it has “been there long before Islam”? Can you pls back this argument by logic or can I also say that Israel is not a religiously based state because the land of Israel “has been there” long before Judaism?
And remember, every day when you and your Israel hating chums wake up and look at yourself in the mirror, spare a thought about Israel, a prosperous, advanced and a free country with an idependent court system and more NASDAQ listings than any other country except the US (and perhaps Canada), with more Nobel prize winners per capita than any other country in the world. According to Mary, we still have at least 50 yrs to torment you. That’s at least 18,000 mornings!
Posted by: Asher Pat | July 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Report this commentDear Asher,
Iran is not based on Islam because it pre-existed Islam and will likely outlive it, should Islam becomes obsolete or should Iranians decide to adopt another religion or no religion at all.
On the other hand, the whole raison d’eter of Israel is that it is alleged to be the Jewish State. What other claim was there when Israel was founded and how else do you justify your barbarity other than by pointing out that some others were barbarous towards the Jews in the past?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentBack to “Barack c-in-c” for a mom.
Posted by: J.J. | July 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Report this commentHe apparently cancelled a visit to a US military hospital today(no reason given) where he would have met wounded troops. Why, one wonders?
He wants fewer pictures taken of him in Berlin (he doesn’t want to annoy other European countries) and will now meet Berlin’s Bürgermeister Wowereit inside the hotel. And in his much-awaited speech, it is forecast he will call for Europe to play a bigger part in the war against terror. The latter might result in a few boo’s at the venue where thousands are waiting to hear him(presumably many Americans are there) as GWB’s wars in Irak/Afghanistan are very unpopular in Germany. I’m curious to see if there will be any heckling / anti-war demonstrators. I’ll watch the speech live on ZDF, starting shortly.
In reading RCS and Asher’s monomaniacle and self-obsessed posts from their hearts of darkness, I can suddenly see where the blood-curdling brutality that I read about and see has its source.
It’s difficult to understand how these people don’t see how much damage they cause their own side.
I would cringe to have them as allies.
Of course, there’s always the chance they might be Iranian agents.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pm | Report this commentPacifist: “Iran is not based on Islam because it pre-existed Islam and will likely outlive it, should Islam becomes obsolete or should Iranians decide to adopt another religion or no religion at all.” This sentence is more twisted than perhaps anything else you’ve ever posted. But let’s play your game: if Iranians were to choose another religion, what do you think it might be?
- Judaism - that would be the biggest irony of all time
- Baha’ism - only if they aren’t all slaughtered by the mullahs
- Zoroastrianism - ditto
- Sufism - ditto
Any thoughts?
Posted by: AYC | July 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Report this commentLOL Paskalis… You argument will make sense to AycSher…some Israelis think Ahmadinejad is their agent:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3371227,00.html
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pm | Report this commentPaskalis: “I can suddenly see where the blood-curdling brutality that I read about and see has its source.”
It is a truly wonderful moment when a man serendipitously finds what he has been looking for his whole life.
Posted by: AYC | July 24th, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentAYC,
Personally, I would encourage them to snap out of religiosity altogether.
I would be happy to translate the collected works of Richard Dawkins into Persian if would you fund it which I am sure you could, being a loaded Yid and all that
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm | Report this commentOh, AYC,
You have shown up for a mental duel with a faulty pistol and no credible second. I refuse to fire on an unarmed man, and I turn my back, though not with the greatest confidence.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm | Report this commentMathios, the man who turns his back in a fight is neither hero or coward, merely a dupe who realises he has brought a knife to a gun fight
Posted by: AYC | July 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Report this commentI’m always surprised, AYC, how even in the driest well, the weed of invective always finds a drop of nourishment.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm | Report this commentP,
“loaded Yid”? — Your smiley cannot erase that.
When will you learn to treat people as individuals?
Posted by: RCS | July 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm | Report this commentExcerpt from HaArtez editorial today…a respective taunting of the Dennis Ross script written for Obama…
“The hope is that Obama left Jerusalem and Ramallah with a deeper understanding of the need to shelve the flowery statements that his Jewish affairs advisors had devised for him, if he is to truly be “a friend of Israel.”
One should keep in mind that the interests of the Israel lobby in America do not always jibe with the interests of the State of Israel. Instead of talking about a “united Jerusalem,” he needs to become involved in finding a realistic solution for Israel’s torn and bleeding capital.
To survive as a Jewish and democratic state, Israel needs an American leader who does not fear the reaction of American Jews and non-Jews who do not believe in dividing the land to reconcile its two peoples. ”
jeesh …what a missed opportunity…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Report this commentA story about President Johnson that would be right for “President Obama” to ponder when he considers his position vi a vis the Zionist lobby. Would Obama be “free at last” too?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/36_l_johnson/filmmore/filmscript.html
Quote
James Farmer: I remember that when I was in the White House talking with him, I asked him how he got to be the way he was. He said, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, here you are, calling senators, twisting their arms, threatening them, cajoling them, trying to line up votes for the Civil Rights Bill when your own record on civil rights was not a good one before you became Vice President. So what accounted for the change?”
Johnson thought for a moment and wrinkled his brow and then said, “Well, I’ll answer that by quoting a good friend of yours and you will recognize the quote instantly. ‘Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I’m free at last.’”
Ed Herlihy, Newsreel Announcer: [1964] Congress passes the most sweeping Civil Rights Bill ever to be written into the law and thus reaffirms the conception of equality for all men that began with Lincoln and the Civil War 100 years ago.
McCullough: [voice-over] When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill into law, a century of enforced segregation was finally over. Blacks and whites could ride the same buses, eat at the same restaurants, use the same washrooms, stay at the same hotels. A southern president had broken the southern system of segregation.
Andrew Young, Civil Rights Activist, Southern Christian Leadership Conference: There was something about this man — I mean, he had a pretty shoddy career and he’d done some pretty ruthless and awful things, but he knew poverty and he knew racism. And I really think that he decided that this was the way to assure his place in history. This was the way to really save the nation. And he knew it was not politically expedient, but I think he really knew it was right.
Unquote
Posted by: Pacifist | July 24th, 2008 at 6:36 pm | Report this commentOn the campaign trail Wednesday, John McCain told a crowd that Israel’s security situation was the worst since the country was created in 1948. Is this the view of the Israeli generals?
Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad praised the recent participation of the US in the nuclear talks in Geneva, particularly the style of the US delegate.
Iranians have much to be proud about, and the misguided thinking of McCain, that threats of killing millions of Iranians helps to bring them around, only causes a deeper entrenchment.
Prof. Geoffrey Roberts, in his letter in today’s FT, claims that Tehran thus far has shown “little inclination towards constructive engagement” with the West (and East, for that matter, if China is included). Does he forget Iran’s posture in 2002 and 2003? Iran helped to plan and carry out the overthrow of the Taliban. Surely this qualifies as “constructive engagement”!
Posted by: James Canning | July 24th, 2008 at 7:01 pm | Report this commentwell, he missed the boat in the Israel trip…of course, that trip was not about Israel/Palestine…but the Jewish vote in America…so an argument can be made it is more important now to shore up any Jewish voters doubts than to reassure someone like me who will vote for him no matter what that he has the balls and wisdom to do what is both just and right in the Middle East ….I just watched the speech in Berlin and read the text…it was Obama-ish and he is one of the few US politicians that would make such a speech…maybe the only one…and it reminded me why I do like him so much…he is of course wrong about more troops in Afghanistan…that is not the solution…but when he is President there will be guys around like Hagel and Webb that will say that …and he will listen…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Report this commentAn eskimo out hunting clubbed a seal over the head. He dragged its rapidly cooling body back to the igloo. The arctic fox, the hyena of the frozen north, bared its teeth but dared not approach.
Posted by: AYC | July 24th, 2008 at 7:09 pm | Report this commentWell, AYC before finish up thought I would put some numbers around my assertion: net migration to Israel still positive, numbers from 1985-2007 (so you can see the trend). The huge migration from Russia is over, ended about 2001, but net migration is still higher than it was in 1985, which, if I remember rightly, was pretty peaceful in the ME. Hence, insofar as the inhabitants are behaving, no ‘existential crisis’. (Doesn’t mean they won’t bomb Iran, of course.)
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsprd
I’m not going to answer “where would they go?” The answer to that is somewhere, anywhere . Refugees tend not to be too choosy. If you want to see real refugee behaviour just look at what happened in Iraq. About 1 million out of 28 million population fled, although a few are starting to go back.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | July 24th, 2008 at 7:17 pm | Report this commentGideon,
An accidental endorsement is not good enough, given your standing and position: it smacks of indecision and of wilting to the latest fashion. I urge you to reconsider.
Observing Obama here in Israel I have to agree with P that he is but a shallow showman. It is very telling that many posters commented that no one really knows what an Obama presidency would look like, not least Obama himself.
Sadly, it is also true that he is a typical American candidate, fitting for the showbiz culture which permeates American politics. The Republicans fielded GWB. In many ways Obama continues that tradition, this time dressed in left.
Posted by: RCS | July 24th, 2008 at 7:39 pm | Report this comment“Rufgees International” and UN puts the figure much at 2 million:”According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.8 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, while 2 million were living in Syria, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option”
I note that a significant number of the Iraqi refugees were Palestinian refugees (from 48 war) they fled Palestine, rebuilt lives in Iraq and again found themselves needing to up root their lives due to sectarian violence against them post US inavsion of Iraq…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Report this commentMary,
You may find this of interest…take a look at the the US Resettlement charts” something Obama could have addressed..and possibly would have if he had not so follishly banished Samantha Power…I still can’t believe they drudged up Dennis Ross…
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 24th, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Report this commentMary, Mary, “Hence, insofar as the inhabitants are behaving, no ‘existential crisis’.” Simplistic nonsense I think best describes your theory. About on a par with the current efforts of Naomi Klein, I think.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
Posted by: AYC | July 24th, 2008 at 7:55 pm | Report this commentTTFN - a blast from the past, AYC!
MfF
Posted by: J.J. | July 24th, 2008 at 10:06 pm | Report this commentJ.J.