Did the commenter at 13 miss the button on the Obama website that said "Skip Sign-Up"? It's a pretty big button...
Rick - you say if Obama actively prevents israel attacking Iran, his presidency is over. Can you explain exactly how you think the process of ending his ptresidency in such a situation would unfold?
Once Iran crosses the threshold of being nuclear capable - not that they would be caught enriching uranium beyond the 5% level suitable for power production - Israel won't have much choice. Regardless of how the Iranian regime's rhetoric looks to us here, there is only one interpretation understood among the overwhelming majority of Israelis.
Obama can try and prevent an Israeli strike but in the end, it will be up to the IDF and the Israeli government. That said, washing his hands of an attempt by Israel to protect itself from a regime that has stated its intention more clearly than any other nation since Nazi Germany was in business will mean the Israel will be isolated more than it has ever been. It would be seen as abandonment by not only American Jews but a large segment of the Democratic party not to mention most conservatives. His administration would be dead in the water with a probable challenger emerging for 2012.
For all intents and purposes, his presidency would be over.
ed.Comment Posted By Cernig On 30.05.2008 @ 05:47
The International Atomic Energy Agency (who it should be noted have yet to prevent any country who wished to build a bomb from going nuclear)
It should probably be also noted that none of the nations who have developed a bomb since the inception of the IAEA and the NPT were parties to the treaty at the time they developed it. Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa. Several nations who were parties to the NPT have stopped short of building a bomb when they undoubtably had the ability to do so. Brazil, Japan, The Netherlands, Australia, Canada and others. It would seem, prima facie, that while intent is the final decider, being a member in good standing of the NPT and having IAEA oversight acts as a modifier of that intent.
John Bolton has said it is legal and allowable for a nation to develop nukes if it never signs on to the NPT, (he was talking about India) but that it becomes illegal and worthy of airstrikes only if an NPT member builds a bomb or walks away from its NPT obligations to do so (e.g. North Korea). Is that your position too, Rick?
I could give a damn what bull oney international no-teeth treaty they've signed on to. I care what their intent toward America is.
Why in God's name that isn't your first consideration too is mindboggling.
ed.Comment Posted By Cernig On 7.05.2008 @ 14:18
I'd be careful about citing that Spegel article, though. I've doubts about it's provenance. No such study appears on the JRC website under the education program Spiegel seems to be citing, although they do refer to a mock analysis of a hypothetical state's capabilities, intended to be uses by advanced non-proliferation students to design an inspections and precautions regime that would prevent said nation getting a weapon. I suspect Spiegel might be stretching and attaching its own interpretation of who that state might be, perhaps in the interests of selling copies of their magazine, but I've emailed JRC asking for clarification.
Regards, CComment Posted By Cernig On 22.02.2008 @ 22:44
ACW blog is run by Dr Jeffrey LEWIS, not Hart.
And in any case, the post you link was authored by Andrew Grotto, not Dr. Lewis.Comment Posted By Cernig On 22.02.2008 @ 20:00
"creating conditions in Iraq that would keep the lid on the worst of the downside to our withdrawal is still achievable ."
Like what? Be specific. If it doesn't include political reconcilliation measures that are believable, a way to make Turkey happy-ish and workable reconstruction plans it doesn't mean squat.
The last 150,000 out in six months? I dispute that. The count at 1t Dec 1971 was 184,000 with another 45,000 leaving in Feb 72. These figures were a fraction of the peak of 549,500 US servicemen at 20th Jan 69.
And while I'm here - did no-one in the "Defeatocrats lost us Vietnam" camp ever notice that there was exactly one presidential candidate who campaigned on the "out of Vietnam" ticket and was elected? What was his name again...Nixon? His successor signed the withdrawal bill. Who were Ford's SecDef and Chief of Staff again?
Regards, CComment Posted By Cernig On 23.08.2007 @ 09:28
Rick, it took four years to withdraw U.S. troops completely from Vietnam. Is that your definition of withdrawing "precipitously"?
I'm starting to think you've got two people writing one blog post here. The first half says Iraq is lost and the second says it's not lost while the U.S. stays. Make your minds up.
Regards, CComment Posted By Cernig On 23.08.2007 @ 08:50
I thought it was obvious I would prefer to see a phased withdrawal, as quickly as is militarily possible, from Iraq instead. That would fix the same problems a draft would.
And I think Kos would laugh at your faulty logic and reply that a draft wouldn't fix the fact that supporters of the Iraq war should be volunteering to help out an army they've brought to such overstretch. I don't know for sure, though, I'm not a fan of his.
Nice work on the Scooby-Doo Villain faux-outrage though.
Regards, CComment Posted By Cernig On 11.08.2007 @ 10:26
Since you see the Shiite/Sunni divide as essentially intractable, wouldn't a better definition for continued troop presence be "staving of the seemingly inevitable disaster"?
Yet it may be that the US military can do something to change that. Withdraw.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive but consider that the US presence, which will always be countered by active meddling by other neighbours, especially Iran, acts to keep the current Iraqi political staus quo relatively stable. By withdrawing, the US could create a space for a non-sectarian coalition united by a wish to see the occupation leave and to reassert Iraqi sovereignty free of both US and Iranian influence is possible. There have been signs of such a coalition within the muddle of playing both ends against the middle that comprises Iraqi politics, and I've written about some of them in recent weeks. I'm working up a speculative post which will try to tie it all together but I want to think it over some.
Regards, CComment Posted By Cernig On 29.04.2007 @ 17:14
Thanks for the link in your first sentence.
Are you so sure Malkin, LGF et al would have reacted in a different way had it been, say Hillary Clinton or John Murtha?
And what does it say about those same folks that their first reaction is not to wonder "who could have spilled on where Cheney was to be?" but instead to wonder "what are the lefties saying?".
Regards, CComment Posted By Cernig On 27.02.2007 @ 23:12
Google "Pakistan ISI". Thats the Pakistani intelligence agency.
The ISI is in truth for the region's terror groups, (according to India, Afghanistan and NATO) what the Quds force is alleged to be for Shiite militias Iraq. That is, a source of funding, weapons and direction.
The jury is still out over whether the ISI is a rogue force or is under Musharaff's control, but as President Bush recently reminded everyone - which is worse, that they are or that they aren't?
So why, in all this discussion we are currently seeing in the US, is the ISI not even mentioned?
Personally, I think it is bipartisan embarassment at being so effectively gamed by the Pakistanis.
Regards, CComment Posted By Cernig On 26.02.2007 @ 18:00
Pages (2) :  2