Do people really believe Obama is so diabolic as to start an unnecessary war in Iran?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

or that he's so incompetent he's being led astray?

or is merely a passive, powerless bystander?

Ya know, I'm kind of sick of war -- and I've never even been to one. I'm tired of the pain those who fight them bring home because I'm tired of those I love being in pain. I'm tired of the distraction against more important issues; the loss of political capital and real capital to do more important things.

I don't believe a war with Iran is either necessary or inevitable; although to be honest those who impose themselves over the Iranian people make me nervous. Damned unpredictable lot of loonies, as far as I'm concerned. Pity those living under/next to them.

But I keep reading these posts that the U.S. is evil/foolish if it goes to war with Iran. When they say "U.S." they might as well say OBAMA. He is the Commander in Chief of all United States armed forces, after all. When people talk about beating war drums they're talking about Obama. When people talk about the MIC pushing hapless politicians into wars for profit they're talking about Obama.

I'm curious who these voices will be voting for in 9 months.

Either we are wrong about the security assessment or we are wrong about Obama. Maybe war will come and it will be needless but did it really come because Obama is evil or incompetent or impotent? Whatever they believe I wish they had the rhetorical honesty to say "Obama" instead of some ambiguous "U.S."

It's dishonest because they want to decry some great evil, real or imagined, without indicting the man they have every intention of voting for, thus validating what they would criticize. If your candidate is really so nefarious/useless why are you voting for him?

"Because the GOP might prolong current wars and start new ones" is obviously not a valid answer.

"Because the GOP might cut social services" only makes wars excusable so long as you get your check from the people you supposedly condemn for being so immoral.

Libya strikes me as a pretty damned unnecessary war. Thank God nobody (on our side) was killed in it. Libya will forever be a blank check to unilateral wars by future presidents and the WPA is as good as dead but whatever my disappointments Obama is not evil, stupid or powerless.

[SwampG8r]

1. he turned me into a newt!

eta:i got better

[renie408]

38. I think I love you now. n/t

[SwampG8r]

44. my experience has shown that

you will get over that feeling

[chrisa]

2. I don't think so, no. I'm more worried about Israel attacking, and us getting sucked into the war

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Israel isn't sailing carriers through the Straits just to call Iran's bluff, we are.

Not a criticism of your post, I'm just sayin'.

[DevonRex]

11. We are NOT calling Iran's bluff. We are reassuring Israel.

By doing so, we are calming Israel down. If they fear they don't have our support they are MORE likely to attack unilaterally, and much sooner than later. This would force us to join the conflict.

And you can replace those 3 countries with 3 different countries and the game theory game comes out the same.

[markpkessinger]

29. Please -- this isn't about Israel's security or ours ...

... It's about a massive corporate/industrial machine that has lost one of its major cash cows (Iraq) and will soon lose another (Afghanistan), and is looking for a replacement! Iran has been in the neocons' sights for years.

[DevonRex]

34. My post is about game theory, not the MIC.

[BiggJawn]

4. Congress declares war.

And who controls Congress? I'm sure most of them think they'd be "helping" the Return of Jeebus by starting a war with Iran.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Congress can declare war but they cannot force a president to fight one

And congress did not start the war in Libya or condone it. Nor do they order carriers through the Straits of Hormuz in defiance of Iranian bluster. There's a reason the President is referred to as the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces.

As nice as it would be to assign blame to congress exclusively that would leave the democrats who controlled both houses from 2007 to 2011 liable, but they aren't (except for funding). Let's not be so partisan as to be absurd and lacking in fact; that hurts more than it helps.

[gratuitous]

5. Evil, incompetent, impotent

Seems there might be other forces at work. And I will keep my own counsel as to why folks want to use the ambiguous "U.S." instead of the specific "Obama" over who will be responsible for any military action against Iran. The only tool we seem to know how to use anymore is the hammer; luckily every problem that presents itself looks like a nail.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. "Boots on the ground war"? No.

"Modern" war? Yes, absolutely. He is Establishment enough to call for and back the covert actions that we know we have been engaging in already, in Iran and elsewhere. I also believe he would agree privately to let Israel bomb Iranian facilities with no consequences from the US.

As for who I will be voting for, that person is yet to be determined.

[EFerrari]

12. Agreed.

I don't see the profit in insulting the man when observation tells you all you need to know about his policy, which is indistinguishable from US policy of the last fifty years or so.

[OranicManic]

8. Where have you been?

Obama must do what he is TOLD, for the most part. Look at the middle east, now under Muslim Brotherhood control. Not sure what is going on, except they are prepping for ENDLESS WAR in the Middle east, so to totally take it over for the oil, so they are destabilizing it. What I'm worried about is the LACK of liberal backbone, when a Democrat is in office.

Did we learn NOTHING from Clinton, who gave us FRECKENFOOD GMO ROUNDUP PESTICIDE FOOD GARBAGE, NAFTA, DISABLED GLAS-SPEIGEL, etc etc etc.

Democratic power structure is just as corrupt, Clinton sold out to the big corporations and sleeze influence.

Obama is run by Goldman Sachs, and Monsanto. And so called 'Liberals' just sit on their hands.

Here is why: just like Clinton, when "our guy" got in we gave it a rest, activism went down, when it should have gone UP!

[zipplewrath]

9. War games

In the worlds best movie ever.....

Well anyway, in War Games, the basic plot is that a computer attempts to fool us into war. It's not that anyone wants it, but it is possible to "force" the hand of those in power by limiting their choices, and to some extent lying to them about their options.

At a critical point in the plot, when it looks like the computer will be successful, the general announces that he may have to start a war, even though everyone realizes that we are not being attacked, because the computer is going to start one anyway, and our best protection will be to go along with the computer and fight the total battle instead of just half.

Ignoring all of the Hollywood stuff, Presidents, and whole countries, do get "forced" into wars. WWI was to a great degree started because everyone was worried that the "other guy" was going to attack first. Germany found itself surrounded by "enemies" that, if they acted in concert, would defeat them. Their only choice 9as they saw it) was to attack first so as to dictate the coarse of the war to their advantage, instead of fighting one on their enemies terms. What we know now was that it was very likely they would never have been attacked. The truth is most of the potential beligerents really didn't "want" the war, they just all convinced themselves that the other guy did.

On more than one occasion, this country almost ended up in a nuclear war with the USSR because the generals in that country were convinced that we were about to attack them. There was truly a belief inside the USSR (weknow know) that the US wanted, and was pursuing the capability to win an offensive war directly against the USSR. At various times the USSR convinced themselves that we believed we had achieved the capability and were waiting for the opportunity to strike.


The "fog of war" starts before the shooting war begins. Cheney and his minions used it to start the war with Iraq. Obama is no more immune to it than any other president in history. There are forces in the world that can leverage fear, threat, and circumstance to present a president with options so stark that they will "choose" to fight a war. There are powerful forces in the world, inside and outside of our government, the Iranian government, and the governments of other countries that would love nothing more than to see a "shootin' war" breakout with Iran and the US. It is not beyond the pale to consider that they could cooperate in ways to present Obama with the impression that he must get involved.

[Initech]

10. No - that's Newt's job!

[woo me with science]

13. This is much larger than Obama.

The Military Industrial Complex is core to the goals and profit of the one percent, and the one percent have purchased our government and our electoral process. This is why foreign policy does not significantly change from one administration to the next and why the MIC will be protected at all costs.

It will continue until we get the money out of government. Change will not come from inside. We must Occupy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. So you're saying Obama is a paid stooge

T. Worthington Vanderpimple III, owner and CEO of Vanderpimple Amalgamated Arms, LLC cannot get on the phone and tell the Pentagon to bomb anything.

Obama is the only CinC this nationa has.

[woo me with science]

16. That was cute, but

the money pouring into our political system is not an illusion or a conspiracy theory, and neither are the now-entrenched systems of influence that have been built around it.

It is a very naive view of our foreign policy that attempts to deny the obvious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Obama is not a paid puppet and only he gives the orders.

It's really that cut and dry. Yes, there is plenty of money polluting everything it touches. No one has said otherwise. But Obama is the CinC and only the CinC can order US troops into combat.

Please explain, WRT your theory, the mechanism by which this monetary pollutiuon filters its way to Obama and compels him to act in reckless and dangerous ways.

[woo me with science]

33. And he has already demonstrated his allegiances quite clearly.

Let's be clear here. I don't know if we are going into Iran or not. What we all *can* predict is that we will expand our military role and will not have a real cutting back of the MIC in any way. We will have new, urgent challenges that will require our military to be protected and grown under this administration, at the cost of more austerity to the rest of us. But it might happen in Syria. It might happen by fomenting conflict between other players, necessitating a buildup of defense on our part. It might happen some other way. But it will happen.

I don't argue with you that a principled leader not indebted to the financial interests behind these policies would be a good thing for this country. I have written posts just within the past few days about that, giving specific examples of things such a leader could do even in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.

However, the current structure of our election system and election financing (which Obama has just publicly validated, btw) virtually guarantees that such a candidate will not get anywhere near the White House anytime soon. Obama is certainly not that politician, as we have already seen over and over again. He signed NDAA, with complaints that it limited his authority. He has just approved the widespread use of surveillance drones over NYC, for what purpose? He has claimed the right to target Americans for assassination without trial. He has renewed the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay and expanded the MIC into many more countries than we were in under Bush. Now we are provoking Iran with sanctions that limit the people's food supply, and we are beating the drum for intervention in Syria. Why? Wait until later this year, when over a trillion must be cut from the budget. What do you think will happen? What have we already heard from Obama's Secretary of Defense about that?

If you really need someone to explain to you how money can influence political policy, I suggest some introductory history and political science classes. But even in the absence of that foundation of understanding, it is not difficult to go back and look at Obama's actions over the past three years as a guide to what he will be willing to do in the future.

[OranicManic]

35. Yup, yup and yup!

That's about it. And thats why a Nader can't get in. There is no way "they" would allow it.-But its also the Banksters that fund the MIC, and the Oil thing, its all tied together.

They seem to be getting ready for something big here. IN the next 3 years or so.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. If Frothy Santorum is right,

Obama probably will be too busy chopping off the heads of Christians to get another war going.

[Taverner]

18. I don't think we will go to war with Iran

At least not in the next 6 years.

All signs have pointed to a military withdrawal.

Yes, there have been targeted asassinations, and this in itself is scary.

But war with Iran means war with China, Russia, and possibly the entire Muslim world.

Bin Laden gets what he wants, the Rapture Ready crowd gets what they want.

[Puregonzo1188]

19. In the same way I believe that Wilson was diabolic enough to get us into World War or Johnson to lie

us into escalating the Vietnam War?

Sure.

One of the fun facts about American democracy is that war mongering is bipartisan.

[Fuzz]

20. It's inevitable already, just a matter of when. Obama loses it starts next March.

If he wins depends on how hard the war whores keep escalating the 'conflict'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. If it starts (not that I think it will) before the election who're you voting for? n/t

[Fuzz]

24. Republican light Obama of course. Just 'cause my side isn't as left as I like doesn't mean

I'll vote for someone further to the right.

[RZM]

23. Santorum's the only Republican who has said he will bomb Iran

To prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. Newt and Mitt pretty much give the same 'all options on the table' answer that Obama does.

I find it highly unlikely that either Newt or Mitt would immediately try to cast themselves as a war president from day one. That ended up not working very well for Bush's legacy and Iraq was a much easier opponent. They will try to stake their legacies on the economy and a war with Iran would not benefit the US economy at all. It would probably end up hurting it substantially. My guess is that both of them and Obama would allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. It's an open question still whether or not Israel will. If I had to guess, I would say they won't bomb either.

Even though he says he'd do it, I'm a bit skeptical that Lil' Ricky would have the cojones to follow through. I kind of think he would end up caving.

[CanSocDem]

22. What is really surprising...

...and dangerous, is the widespread belief in your country that it actually matters whether there is a democrat or republican in the WhiteHouse. As was mentioned earlier, industry controls both parties and war, to them, is just another opportunity to make money. I doubt whether they worry at all about the 'human cost'.

Equally surprising is the lack of widespread outrage at instant video of war crimes on the internet. Back in the day it took a photospread in a monthly magazine to alert the citizens of the atrocities going on in their name, and fueled the successful efforts of the anti-war movement.

Nowadays there is damning video, whistleblowers and soldiers like Bradley Manning and still the war machine is allowed to do what it can for the bottom line of industry.

.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. So how culpable is the CinC?

[CanSocDem]

26. Not much, IMO.

Clearly, either way, it is out of his hands. However your own history shows what happens when the CinC acts out of conscience.

.

[Fumesucker]

27. There's no way a president could ever start a war..

Presidents are essentially powerless figureheads, as we have been reminded here on DU many times Obama can't even close Gitmo, for Tebow's sake.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Politicians need bogeymen to keep the populace wanting a "leader".

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. Do political partisans need bogeymen to excuse voting against professed principles?

And that HLM quote could just as easily apply to DU. How many defined groups are lambasted here hour after hour?

[emulatorloo]

37. Spot on n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. probably not - but if Israel attacks and Iran retaliates against American interest in the Gulf,

what will happen next?

[BlueIris]

31. Yes, he very well could set off a war with Iran here.

Look at his actions--it is clearly possible under this president.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Potentially, yes I do.

"Diabolical", "incompetent" and "passive" are your words, not mine, but - while I think it unlikely - I certainly don't completely rule out Obama choosing to declare war on Iran, especially if Israel does.

If you think that makes him any of those things, that's your judgement, not mine.

[Odin2005]

39. LOL, war with Iran is always 6 months away, and will be 6 months from now.

the 'War with Iran is coming" folks are like the Libertarians that think Weimar Germany style hyperinflation is just around the corner.

[Arkana]

40. And Harold Camping's prediction that the world will end in JUST SIX MORE MONTHS.

[renie408]

41. That is EXACTLY what I just said!

The last time I was at the DU everybody was talking about us being on the brink of war with Iran. Seems like we are always on the brink of war with them.

[ZombieHorde]

42. I know I would not be shocked if the US went to war against Iran. nt

[Bonobo]

43. Is the war in Afghanistan and the relentless drone attacks in Yemen, Pakistan, etc. necessary? nt