Obama administration asks for 10% military budget cut

[yerfer]

If Iran is supplying the weapons that kill other Americans then can we afford to not do something? And its true that with the military's current situation trying to cover each area would be a big stretch of resources. But I'd rather they would have thrown a good chunk of money toward the military to help with that lack of resources rather than all the bailouts. Though i'll concede that a part of the problem is also recruiting and just expensive toys wont fix a lack of personnel.

and I think its hard to fault Isreal for their attitude toward the countries around them. if we had countries bordering us saying they wanted to wipe us off the map with a nuke program running I am not sure that we wouldnt have already pulled the trigger.

Maybe a solution is for someone to talk to Iran and lay out pretty much what would happen. They get ready with a nuke, Isreal hits them, they all try to hit Isreal, we defend Isreal with a few other allies, China or Russia jump in for fun... in the end it cant be good for Iran by itself. maybe they just need someone to walk in with a good estimate of the final outcome and spread that around not only the top levels of government but even the lower levels somehow so they realize what their leaders could be getting them into.

Beats me. I've wondered why we didn't cut the head off the snake to begin with. Rather than stopping arms dealers in Iraq, go to Iran and give them the stern warning to stop or pay the ultimate price. Unfortunately, it's never been done. One of the biggest reasons why I think our prior leadership failed to do its job.

I don't see China getting involved because it would directly effect their economy in a massive way. We provide so much income for them, they wouldn't risk their current gain. Plus, seeing China being top competition in the market today, they won't enter unless something of major magnitude is of interest. This isn't to say we shouldn't sleep with one eye open. I say expect the unexpected.

Iran and Israel aren't going to get along because they both support radical beliefs that they won't come to terms with peacefully. I think Iran fears Israel the same way Israel fears Iran. Equal worry from both states is the suspense. I'm surprised Israel hasn't already flown in to destroy the nuclear plants the way they did years ago with Vipers.

I'm not saying it is exactly the same, but that'd be like Mexico trying to claim the Southwest back because it was theirs a while ago.

Make a trip to Arizona. Mexico is already taking over.

One of the major problems with the Israel issue are the misconceptions that abound. While it's true that prior to 1948, there was no "Jewish state" in the area, and Palestine was primarily run by Arabs, there was a significant Jewish population in the area, and they had been secondary in political power ever since the middle ages when Islam overran the area. If seen from a Jewish perspective, that area has been and always was theirs.

If you see things from the Arab standpoint, they adopt a sort of myopia, where their "history" of the region only goes back several hundred years...according to them, that area was always theirs, and the Jews suddenly sprung out of obscurity to claim it for themselves.

The thing is, the Jewish population of Palestine had always wanted to reclaim their position in the region, but had been politically powerless to do so. It was WWII and the holocaust that gave them political clout to get away with making Palestine into Israel. I personally take Israel's side in the issue, simply because they have existed there as a people far longer than any others. However, the Palestinian Arabs shouldn't be automatically kicked out, because they've been there for a long time too. The only reason why I don't condemn Israel for their actions towards the Palestinian Arabs is because of the behavior of the Arab factions...if Israel tried to let them live peacefully within their country, they would still commit acts of terror, and still try to topple and remove the Jewish government. The Arab factions that hold the power in the region have no interest in sharing the spotlight with Jews in any capacity.

It's really too bad because both sides are guilty of omitting certain histories to suit their own picture. Iran only complicates things...and their role in this saga is more along the lines of regional domination, rather than actual resolution of the Arab/Jewish issue. In fact, in my experience most Arabs outside Palestine don't even like the Palestinian Arabs...the Iraqis here make fun of them, unless they're getting bombed by Israel, which then they turn serious and act as though the very people they were saying jokes about are now their brothers...

I side with you on this. Do you think their will ever be a way to peacefully deal the differences without force?

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I'm not saying it is exactly the same, but that'd be like Mexico trying to claim the Southwest back because it was theirs a while ago.

I disagree. Mexico is a fairly modern invention. If anything, the Mexicans are similar to the Arabs in this situation, with the Native Americans being similar to the Jewish population. Arabs are not the historical culture of that area...that area has roots with Assyrians, Hebrews and various other peoples (many have now long been assimilated into the greater Arab culture that appeared in the middle ages). In any case, Mexico claiming the southwestern US is a geopolitical situation that has little to do with native culture.

[flyusaf83]

Ahmadinejad isn't the leader of Iran, don't forget about Ayatollah Ali Khamenei- Iran's supreme leader. He'll let Mahmoud rattle the saber and then reel him in when needed. Who cares what Mahmoud has to say- Khameni is the real power in Iran.

If we went with your logic I guess we could save a few bucks on the budget by eliminating the diplomatic corps altogether. No need to talk when we can just bomb.

Clearly you didn't read my post. I said diplomacy doesn't work w/Iran because their government isn't rational. Diplomacy can work with rational states when power is on your side. By the way, I wouldn't take any comfort in Ayatollah being supreme over Mahmoud. He is just as fanatic.

[Vertigo]

I said diplomacy doesn't work w/Iran because their government isn't rational. Diplomacy can work with rational states when power is on your side.

You are correct, however, when the rational citizens of their country see the U.S. offering up the peace pipe and their government stomping it into the ground that COULD spur a new revolution. If we look like the bad guys then no change can come about. If we come off as the good guys and their government come off as the bad guys then there is a greater chance for change in that country. Change to something we could work with.

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. We haven't lost anything. But if it does then great. That's my only point really.

[flyusaf83]

You are correct, however, when the rational citizens of their country see the U.S. offering up the peace pipe and their government stomping it into the ground that COULD spur a new revolution. If we look like the bad guys then no change can come about. If we come off as the good guys and their government come off as the bad guys then there is a greater chance for change in that country. Change to something we could work with.

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. We haven't lost anything. But if it does then great. That's my only point really.

In theory, I agree with you completely, but there is a huge problem. For diplomacy to work with Iran in the way you are describing, Obama has to have military operations on the table. He has made abundantly clear that he will not go to war with Iran at any level. Politically, it is nearly impossible for Obama to use military options with Iran because of his past statements and base of support. Iran knows this. That's why the diplomacy will not work and will be counter-productive. They have nothing to lose. It will only give them a chance at political grandstanding with the most powerful nation on earth. They will use it as propaganda to their cause. And I can see Obama giving the concessions as a measure of "good will" just as Chamberlain did. Iran will go into the meetings knowing that things can't get worse for them and only better. Obama has already chopped off his own balls in the meetings by vowing not to use military options. Win-win situation for Iran, lose-lose for the US.

[yerfer]

I found this on youtube. Something to think about.

[Ill Destructor]

Don't worry. We may be going to war with Iran and the rest of the Middle East, but Obama has got your car covered with a government-backed car warranty. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090330/ap_on_..._wh/obama_autos

[Guest Hueypilot812]

From the article on Yahoo! posted above:

Other presidents have forced showdowns with major industries, with mixed results. Harry Truman's decision to nationalize the steel industry on the eve of a strike in 1952 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But Ronald Reagan succeeded in busting the air traffic controllers' union three decades later.

It seems the news media have gotten it wrong again. They try to paint Reagan as a president who exerted government control over industry, but fail to mention that the Air Traffic Controllers were Federal employees, and the steel industry workers were not Federal employees.

[discus]

And now, on a lighter note, this is without a doubt, Chia Pet's finest hour. In a store near you NOW! (Except Wallgreens, they pulled it off the shelves)

(Couldn't get the .gif to animate in here, but if you click on it, it works)

Edited April 8, 2009 by discus