Drawing a distinction, I fear, where there may be none. Do any of these factions oppose another?
It’s more that they have little in common with each other. Neocons are ideologues, think-tankers, visionaries who want a global American Empire. The other set want all that only insofar as it might help their bottom lines and no farther. In fact, ISTM the biz types are mostly not nationalists but internationalists, nowadays, in the sense that neoliberals are internationalists, i.e., economic globalizers. A modern megacorporation has no homeland as such.
Do you honestly think Obama would be any less likely to go to war with Iran than Romney? He has said time and time again that all options are on the table with regards to Iran, and he has been one of the “strongest on defense” presidents we’ve ever had.
If anything, Romney seems LESS likely to attack Iran than Obama.
It’s Halliburton vs. GE, and I guess the tipping point will be, which side does JP Morgan come down on?
I and others have detailed the conservative drumbeat towards war, and the neocon warhawks that are likely to infest a Romney administration. Have you got anything to support your strange viewpoint?
I think there is a good chance of a war with Iran no matter who is elected. When I see what President Obama has done on foreign policy, I have trouble finding anything that President McCain would have done differently.
[ul]
[li]Guantanamo is still open.[/li][li]We still have troops in Afghanistan.[/li][li]We withdrew from Iraq on the schedule set by the Bush Administration.[/li][li]We have committed various deniable acts of sabotage against the Iranian nuclear program. [/li][li]We have an active program of assassinating people in foreign counties including Bin Laden.[/li][/ul]
The only question is whether we can stiffle Iran’s nuclear program by covert means until this is a regime change or do we have to go overt.
If anything having President Obama in office is an advantage, since it keeps the doves in Congress less restive.
Your “drumbeat” lists 3 examples, 2 of which are urging Israel to do something.
And Giuliani, the one urging US action, is just taking a partisan swipe at Obama. If you read what he’s urging Obama to do, its actually pretty much what Obama is doing.
Easy - after the hostile takeover, we just sell all the historical landmarks to Chinese investors, liquidate the underperforming cities, spin off the eastern half of the country into an autonomous state to be sold to Pakistan, reorganize the Revolutionary Guard as a 501c for tax purposes, then get enough venture capital in to rebrand everything that’s left as “Waffle House presents: New Persia™”, complete with water slides, roller coasters, and the interactive Jihad Experience Featuring Madman Mahmoud and the Ayatollah Dancers.
And if that doesn’t work, just do a two-for-one stock split and sell the whole place to Disney.
I hear the rugs are pretty valuable. I call dibs on the rugs.
May 4th, 2012 Obama Said:
“Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.”
“That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”
So, he talks the talk. He will use the military against Iran if they obtain nuclear weapons. Now, will he walk the walk?
2008 Townhall debate between McCain and Obama, Obama said:
"And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out.
We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
And he authorized just that kind of action, and killed Bin Laden.
He also pledged to keep up the war in Afghanistan, supported troop surges there, and he kept that pledge as well.
Obama has been a war-hawk president, and the right will never attack him on matters of foreign policy because Americans recognize it and give him credit for handling “The War on Terror” well.
So, what makes YOU think Obama would be any less likely to go to war with Iran than Romney, and why do you think this is a strange point of view?
I still say that there is only a minuscule chance that the US is literally going to go to war with Iran, no matter who is president. And by that, I mean boots on the ground as in Iraq to overthrow the regime and replace it.
As for using military strikes to try and set back their nuclear program? Very possible for either Obama or Romney. I might give a slight edge to Romney, mainly because I think Obama is more open to diplomacy. But our intelligence guys are going to be telling them when the point of no return will be reached. If negotiations aren’t successful by then, it’s bombs away, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
It’s also important to remember that the “point of no return” is longer out in time for us than it is for Israel. I actually think and Israeli strike is the most likely scenario.
I really wish people would let that go. Obama tried to shut it down, Congress wouldn’t let him.
Right-wing hysteria not withstanding, Obama’s not a dictator.
Do you know how long it takes to plan a war? Romney has not shown the patience, attention span, or commitment to a single idea (other than getting elected) to start, much less run, a war.
Israeli strike means response by Iran. Iran’s response means US gets involved. Boots on the ground within 3 months from Israel strike.
How do you argue US non-involvemement when Israel strikes?
You mean like the last two times Israel did this and there wasn’t a response?
But for the sake of argument, let’s say it does happen…
No, it doesn’t.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say it does happen…
The response won’t be boots on the ground.
How do you argue that “involvement” = “boots on the ground”?
Exactly!
The Bush administration did not wage war with Iran, neither will Romney unless Iran steps up its campaign of terror against Israel.
I hope we’re all in agreement, here, that we don’t want war with Iran under any circumstances? And certainly not to defend Israel?
I can imagine lots of circumstances were war with Iran would be needed.
Why should we fight wars for Israel?