The Iranian threat

[Pannonian]

I purposefully didn’t point a finger at Clinton because who was in charge didn’t matter the fact that nothing got done is what matters. Besides, Clintons “droning” didn’t equal any results, obviously Bin was not considered a great enough of a threat. Newt is a slimy guy but he and the GOP had every right to yell Wag the Dog because that is what seemed to be happening (Desert Fox, Infinite Reach & the worst IMO Allied Force in Serbia).

IIRC Somalia left Clinton with a certain nervousness about committing US troops overseas. Certainly Blair had to push him into Kosovo, and the eventual threat of using NATO troops used Europeans Clinton was less squeamish about. Despite that, Clinton did occasionally order military strikes. It should have told you something about the importance of the matter, that an essentially pacifistic President should feel so strongly about this threat.

Guaranteeing that America wouldn’t attack would be very foolish from a PR standpoint and why would we want to make a deal with them unless it included them stopping all their hostel actions towards us and our allies. They actively promote violence against us and our allies and we continue to defend ourselves. They are clearly the pestering aggressors that seem unwilling to simply stop the hostilities against us.

So talk to them, sort out a deal whereby Iran will have a certain geographical and political sphere of influence, within which they can play the regional power as long as they do not overly interfere with America's friends and allies in the region. The standard diplomatic game, understood by people all over the world. Instead, Bush has insisted that the precondition for America even deigning to talk to Iran is its abandonment of its nuclear programme. Considering that the neocons have been talking about regime change in Iran for around a decade, if Iran does indeed accept this demand, what bargaining chips will they have left when they do enter the talks?

As I've said in one of the Israel threads, the problem is America's penchant for unilateral actions, unilateral demands. Talk to them, for edit's sake, you don't lose anything by doing so.

[yesdachi]

IIRC Somalia left Clinton with a certain nervousness about committing US troops overseas. Certainly Blair had to push him into Kosovo, and the eventual threat of using NATO troops used Europeans Clinton was less squeamish about. Despite that, Clinton did occasionally order military strikes. It should have told you something about the importance of the matter, that an essentially pacifistic President should feel so strongly about this threat.

I don’t think he was as pacifistic as he was preoccupied and he wagged the dog to preoccupy America. My point is that he felt strong enough about other “threats” that didn’t really threaten us then he did about the one that really was a threat, but wouldn’t get a big enough headline to distract from the issues he wanted to cause a distraction from.

So talk to them, sort out a deal whereby Iran will have a certain geographical and political sphere of influence, within which they can play the regional power as long as they do not overly interfere with America's friends and allies in the region. The standard diplomatic game, understood by people all over the world. Instead, Bush has insisted that the precondition for America even deigning to talk to Iran is its abandonment of its nuclear programme. Considering that the neocons have been talking about regime change in Iran for around a decade, if Iran does indeed accept this demand, what bargaining chips will they have left when they do enter the talks?

My calls keep going unanswered or unreturned.
Dealing with America is not difficult if you want peace, they don’t. They want to destroy their enemies, not build a prosperous country that enjoys the benefits of free trade and commerce. A hostile environment is good for them politically.

As I've said in one of the Israel threads, the problem is America's penchant for unilateral actions, unilateral demands. Talk to them, for edit's sake, you don't lose anything by doing so.

America (right now) does have some black and white demands but they are not unreasonable IF peace was the goal but it isn’t. The only thing talking more will do is give them more time. Why bother?

[Pannonian]

I don’t think he was as pacifistic as he was preoccupied and he wagged the dog to preoccupy America. My point is that he felt strong enough about other “threats” that didn’t really threaten us then he did about the one that really was a threat, but wouldn’t get a big enough headline to distract from the issues he wanted to cause a distraction from.

And yet he pressed, above all else, for action on Osama Bin Laden. Why? Focusing on Al-Qaeda didn't merit headlines in America, Iraq did, yet he emphasised the threat posed by Bin Laden, not that posed by Saddam. If he really wanted to distract people from his domestic problems, wouldn't he have gone for the headline threat instead of the more insidious one?

My calls keep going unanswered or unreturned.
Dealing with America is not difficult if you want peace, they don’t. They want to destroy their enemies, not build a prosperous country that enjoys the benefits of free trade and commerce. A hostile environment is good for them politically.

America (right now) does have some black and white demands but they are not unreasonable IF peace was the goal but it isn’t. The only thing talking more will do is give them more time. Why bother?

Have you read the various goals of the neocons? Regime change ("democratisation") in the middle east, except of course if they elect governments unfriendly to Israel (eg. Lebanon, Palestine). Starting with Iraq, but other prominent targets are Iran, Syria, and even Egypt. Is it a conspiracy theory if the neocons state it themselves?

[yesdachi]

And yet he pressed, above all else, for action on Osama Bin Laden. Why? Focusing on Al-Qaeda didn't merit headlines in America, Iraq did, yet he emphasised the threat posed by Bin Laden, not that posed by Saddam. If he really wanted to distract people from his domestic problems, wouldn't he have gone for the headline threat instead of the more insidious one?

That’s a bit of a stretch. The fact is, nothing got done about Bin Laden, Clinton was the President and no one in the world could have stopped him if he wanted to “deal” with Bin Laden. So either he was not seen as a great enough threat or Clinton was incompetent.

I heard someone on the radio a few days ago describe Clinton during a meeting, he said he had a yellow legal pad and a pencil and was very interactive during the parts of the meeting that involved policy and economic numbers but paid hardly any attention when the topic would change to security and terrorist activity. Clinton was good at some things but he did not recognize the threats and that is what i think we, right now, need to do and then deal with them.

Have you read the various goals of the neocons? Regime change ("democratisation") in the middle east, except of course if they elect governments unfriendly to Israel (eg. Lebanon, Palestine). Starting with Iraq, but other prominent targets are Iran, Syria, and even Egypt. Is it a conspiracy theory if the neocons state it themselves?

Our desire for a regime change in countries that are hostel to us is a bad thing?

[Don Corleone]

Okay, I'll bite. Tribesman, you're apparently making the case, without link or quote, mind you, that the IAEA in no way considers Iran to be a threat, and for the USA to describe it as one is misldeading, erroneous, etc.

Am I correct here?

If this be the case, kindly enlighten a stupid sod as myself as to why the Security Council is investegating and even Russia and China agree that something must be done, they just disagree on the particularities of the something?

If Russia, who's quite possibly Iran's best friend in the world, is claiming that yes, they're developing nuclear weaponry, but to get them to stop, we need to use diplomacy, not force of arms, something doesn't add up. Maybe somebody forgot to tell Putin about the IAEA report.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I said before, Iran is not a direct threat to us, but they could make things even more awkward in the Middle East, though at the moment the way Iraq and Afganistan are being hadled they don't need to.

[Pannonian]

That’s a bit of a stretch. The fact is, nothing got done about Bin Laden, Clinton was the President and no one in the world could have stopped him if he wanted to “deal” with Bin Laden. So either he was not seen as a great enough threat or Clinton was incompetent.

I heard someone on the radio a few days ago describe Clinton during a meeting, he said he had a yellow legal pad and a pencil and was very interactive during the parts of the meeting that involved policy and economic numbers but paid hardly any attention when the topic would change to security and terrorist activity. Clinton was good at some things but he did not recognize the threats and that is what i think we, right now, need to do and then deal with them.

The departing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration about the danger of terrorism, and specifically that coming from Bin Laden.

As for terrorism and security - Muslim countries during Clinton's presidency forced the extremists out of their countries. They collected in Afghanistan because it was just about the only Muslim country in the world that still openly welcomed them. Was this due to Clinton? I haven't seen it said that he materially helped, but he certainly encouraged it, not least through his diplomatic stance. While conservatives may have despised the western corruption that he embodied, the image of America that he presented tended to persuade Muslim populaces away from Bin Laden's view of Islam, and towards a more cosmopolitan view that was more accommodating with the west. Did this materially improve America's security against terrorist attacks? Who can tell, except that this was how Britain successfully defeated the IRA, by wooing their support base. Compare global views of America then with views of America now. Whatever Bush may have done about security, America has far more enemies now than under Clinton.

Our desire for a regime change in countries that are hostel to us is a bad thing?

It's illegal. Nuremberg established that the worst crime a state can commit is to pursue an aggressive war. Bush 1 reinforced this principle in GW1.

[yesdachi]

The departing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration about the danger of terrorism, and specifically that coming from Bin Laden.

But he wasn’t considered a big enough threat to do anything about.

As for terrorism and security - Muslim countries during Clinton's presidency forced the extremists out of their countries. They collected in Afghanistan because it was just about the only Muslim country in the world that still openly welcomed them. Was this due to Clinton? I haven't seen it said that he materially helped, but he certainly encouraged it, not least through his diplomatic stance. While conservatives may have despised the western corruption that he embodied, the image of America that he presented tended to persuade Muslim populaces away from Bin Laden's view of Islam, and towards a more cosmopolitan view that was more accommodating with the west. Did this materially improve America's security against terrorist attacks? Who can tell, except that this was how Britain successfully defeated the IRA, by wooing their support base. Compare global views of America then with views of America now. Whatever Bush may have done about security, America has far more enemies now than under Clinton.

Would America have as many enemies now if Clinton had dealt with the growing terrorist threat/Bin Laden then? It is an unanswerable question but in hindsight you must admit that there was a greater threat there than we realized?

It's illegal. Nuremberg established that the worst crime a state can commit is to pursue an aggressive war. Bush 1 reinforced this principle in GW1.

Desiring, encouraging and even participating in a regime change is far from illegal depending on how it is carried out.

[rotorgun]

I say, judging from the link that Vladimir provided us with Achmadenijad's
speech at the Tehran conference, that they are primarily a threat to Isreal. If so, isn't this Isreal's problem? Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is wanting to ratchet up the stakes by claiming that they threaten the entire region. Why must evrything that is Isreal's problem become an issue of life or death for us in the States? When I see Iranian soldiers or suicide bombers trying to infiltrate the US, then I'll be willing to do plenty to defend this country from them. As much as I am for the survival of Isreal, I do not think I owe them my blood any more than they do me.

If they have been making these threats for 28 years, than why are they all of a sudden such a big threat? It seems that they are nothing more than a sounding brass bell to me.

Cordially,

[Pannonian]

But he wasn’t considered a big enough threat to do anything about.

Would America have as many enemies now if Clinton had dealt with the growing terrorist threat/Bin Laden then? It is an unanswerable question but in hindsight you must admit that there was a greater threat there than we realized?

You're missing the point. Whether it was due to Clinton or not, effective counter-terrorism on a grand scale, as demonstrated by Britain, relies on persuading people to your point of view. Getting people to like you is the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all. Whether he did it as part of anti-terrorism or not, Clinton was an expert at getting people overseas to like him, and by extension, America.