Make friends with America? Never!

I'm guessing Thomas,that you mean that Obama needs to walk his talk in exactly the way George w Bush didn't, in simple terms, will Obama follow through?

Exactly, Dys. Obama can assure his audience all he wants that he "understands" why some Islamic nations want to build nukes, and how America will "seek a world" where no country has them at all. But the reality is, when Obama leaves office in 2017, America will still have nukes. And if Iran even comes close to building one of its own, Obama's America will bomb the shit out of them just like George Bush would have. These things are driven by self-interest, not by the feelings governments have for each other.

In other words, put me down as what Obama and his fans call a "cynic".

I'm no less a cynic. And I figure some damn bomb will reach it's target one of these days. I remain anti bomb, a useless position.

Though I do think that speechesd from the very powerful can and do sometimes make a difference, just by their code about what the powerful expect.

Re specifics, though.

I hope that there is a clear message to Israel that a Palestinian state exists RIGHT NOW, and that the US will expect, in return for its support, some actual engagement with a peace process and real concessions....and...and hopefully a cessation of settlements, and the destruction of some of them.

It is interesting that he appears more willing to engage with Hamas.

You may not have seen much non-American response and analysis in the US media (what a shock) but there has been a hell of a lot of analysis in the Moslem world nonetheless, and some of it quite positive.

Of course, only proof is in the eating of the Obama pudding...and let us hope that it IS a pudding, and not a souffle.

Yeah, right . . . just like they did with Pakistan, with North Korea. I'd be interested to know why you believe this is true.

Wait . . . never mind . . . i don't think i would be interested in the origin of such a naive assumption . . .

OK, Thomas, i'll be a little nicer about this. You are one of the most well-informed, if not the most well-informed member we have on the topic of economics. You are very well-informed about politics. But a comment like that shows that you aren't very well-informed about recent history, and are rather naive about military affairs.

In 1977, the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party proved (if there had ever been any doubt) that they, in the Iraqi version at least, they weren't very damned bright. They bought a breeder-reactor from the French, constructed it at Osirak, and went right into business on a nuclear womd program. (They probably had help from the Pakistanis, as we now know.) First the Persians bombed it in the Iran-Iraq War. Then, in 1981, the Israelis launched an air strike which crippled it almost beyond repair in an afternoon--fly out, bomb the shit out of the dumb Iraqis, home in time for a hot dinner and back-slapping at the mixer after dinner.

Then, in the Gulf War, the Americans and the RAF scattered what was left of it.

Mossad must have laughed themselves sick over that one. The Iraqis did just about everything wrong, short of up putting a flashing neon sign over the site reading: "Radical Secular Arab Nuclear Program."

Do you seriously think that anyone has been that stupid since then? To destroy the Persians' nuclear program, nothing short of a full-scale invasion and occupation would suffice. Take a look at the map sometime--Iran is at best a semi-arid country, and in the worst places it is desert or mountains, and much of it is desert and mountains. There are so many places to hide such a program, so many places to build bunkers under millions of tons of rock that if you did manage to invade and occupy the country, you'd need 30 or 40 years just to do the preliminary survey.

Where would we bomb it from? Iraq? The only other Shi'ite-dominated nation on earth? That will go over like a ham sandwich at an Israeli picnic. From whence would you invade? Iraq, once again? Over the invasion route that the Persians and Iraqis fought over for ten years? From Afghanistan? Through the mountainous desert that claimed half of Alexander's army when he came back from India?

Oh, wait, wait . . . i know . . . we'll sneak up on 'em, and invade from Armenia, or Azerbaijan. I'm sure the Russians won't mind . . .

You didn't think that one through, Thomas.

Good point -- but what if you put a "coalition of the willing" together again? Did a heckuva job last time, as the 43d president might put it.

Anyway, Setanta -- what did you think of Obama's speech?

Nice turn of metaphor there! I intend to steal it.

Saw a joke in the paper this morning.


Man goes in to see the doctor, and the prognosis is bad.

"Well, doc, how long have I got?"

-"I'd say, ten."

"Ten what? Months, weeks, or what?"

-"....nine,.....eight,......"

No matter what coalition you put together, you'd need to do another Iraq, and on a larger scale, against a larger population, in more difficult terrain, against a larger, better equipped army, with thousands of veteran NCOs and officers, and an available pool of hundreds of thousands of veterans of the Iran-Iraq war. You'd have to stay there longer, with far more troops, and even that would be no guarantee. Many outside observers believed, and Iraqis agreed, that the Israeli raid only hardened the Ba'athist resolve to have a nuclear program. Someday, you'd have to leave Iran, and you can bet that you would not have cured the desire of the Persians to have a nuclear arsenal.

As for Mr. Obama's speech? Politics almost as usual, except that we finally have a President who recognizes that pissing off the Israelis does us far less harm than pissing off the Arab world. And our national interest lies in good relations with as many nations as possible--and in the particular case of the middle east, it lies in rapprochement with the Arabs, and the Israelis be damned, if they make that attitude necessary.

No. It is useful to show the rest of the world that all citizens are not Dr. Strangelove types.

But, there is no reason to think that would have been what George Bush would have done, since during his Presidency the world was already aware of Iran's goal, and Iran's recalcitrance.

What might make Iran different, than Pakistan and North Korea having the bomb, is that Iran's bomb may be mixing nuclear weapons and religion possibly. So, I do think something will take place. I am betting on the Lone Ranger without Tonto. Or, maybe the Cisco Kid and Pancho ("Oh, Cisco").

But, I do not think any bombing of Iran will take place.

I agree with you, I think he did do well (very well!) in Cairo. This is from an "outsider's" (to US politics) perspective, of course. I think such a speech, or some sort of declaration of the US's new position, was necessary to the Islamic world & to the rest of the world community, for the US's sake, as much as anything else. There needed to be some clear sign that business as usual, of the Bush variety, was well & truly over. I think he spoke very eloquently (as always) & I think his words gave many reason to hope. Cautious hope, but that's better than no hope at all of change. And I can't think of anyone but Obama who could have carried that off half as well. He seems the right US president for this particular task, at this time. But we will have to see what happens from here, though, won't we? What will be the US's response if the Israelis continue with "business as usual" with yet more settlements on the West Bank, for example? Middle eastern countries & the rest of the world will be watching closely. If Obamas's words turn out to be just words then then US credibility (& his own credibility) will experience a dramatic nose dive.

You say that the rest of the world doesn't realize that "the USA is a truly polarized nation, polarized between the far right and the near right." And that "there is no left in America". That's a very interesting statement. I'd really be interested in more discussion about that. Perhaps on another thread, if not here. As an outsider, I find the far right US position on many issues crystal clear. But I have great difficulty pin-pointing what I'd call a "unified left position". If there's one thing I've learned through my years at Abuzz & also here, it's that that US politics & culture is much more complex & difficult to understand than I'd ever imagined.

Ah, but Thomas, you don't appear to be considering the impact of Obama's words on the hearts & minds of the ordinary people of the countries he wishes to influence! It is not all about leaders, politicians & the powerful. I saw his speech as a declaration of a new, more ethical way of doing things than the last 8 Bush years. If the US government can follow through with action supporting the rhetoric - or can at least be seen to be doing its utmost (in difficult circumstances) to do that - then I think he might well achieve some much hoped-for improvements in relations between "Occident and Orient". The things is, many people actually really want this to occur. (You can accuse me of being naive & romantic if you like, but I honestly believe this.)

Yes.