US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[sikvod00]

Obama Admin. Wouldn't Defend Blocking Military Benefits from Same-Sex Couples

The Obama Justice Department has concluded that legislation banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment and will no longer defend the statute in court, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders on Friday.

“The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans,” Holder wrote. “Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA.”

Holder said DOJ would no longer defend the provisions in Title 38 which prevent same-sex couples who are legally married from obtaining benefits. He said that Congress would be provided a “full and fair opportunity” to defend the statues in the McLaughlin v. Panetta case if they wished to do so.

As Holder writes, the benefits in question “include medical and dental benefits, basic housing allowances, travel and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, military identification cards, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefits, and the right to be buried together in military cemetaries.”

I'm an occasional Obama critic, but "small" things like these make me happy that he's President and not McCain or some other mainstream Republican. This is unequivocally the right thing to do and there is NO reasonable argument for being against it. Period.

Honestly, it appears as though he's just baiting the GOP into making these things a big deal, because he knows they're on the losing side of the issue. The GOP aren't going to win any upcoming elections being a culture warrior. Most Americans aren't bigots or hate women's reproductive rights, and those who do are more concerned about jobs at the moment.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

That's why US have been trying to talk Iran out of the nuclear weapon program for several years. There were proposals to allow Iran to carry on with their nuclear program, with assurances that uranium would not be enriched high enough for weapon use. But Iran rejected them. US tried sanctions. Israel tried assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. There was also stuxnet that we suspect were US and Israel cyber attacks targetting Iranian nuclear facilities.

I think it's fair to say that US has tried everything short of military action to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Even at this point Obama's position is still "all options are on the table", ie not ruling out military actions, which is not quite the same as suggesting a war. If the new round of sanctions and economic difficulties cannot force Iran back to the table, then it is either airstrikes (and further military actions) or letting Iran develop nukes.

And don't forget that although US has influence over Israel, Israel is not really under US control. Because Israel is within striking distance of Iran and much more prone to nuclear attacks, Israel is much more willing than US to risk a war, with or without US approval.

I can totally understand why Iran wants to develop nuke. But it is a lose-lose situation for all. Even for Iran, whatever they gain from this will be offset by the economic price and increasing international isolation.

Look, Iran isn't really under US control either. So what's the big deal about Iran wanting nuclear weapons? Economic price or international isolation is a small price to pay for continued existence. America can't offer anything to Iran that Iran actually wants; assurances of their survival. And if America can't offer that then Iranians would have to arm themselves.

Lose-lose is better than lose-win, if you are on the losing side one way or another. We can argue otherwise when Iran is actually getting something genuine out of not having nukes. But this is currently the correct decision they are making. You can't seriously think Iran is better off doing what America wants with nothing in return.

America has tried everything to THREATEN Iran into not having nukes.

What you can't seem to understand, is that it is these very threats that made it urgent that Iran get a nuclear weapon as fast as possible. As soon as they got nukes, the threats would end. But not before. It is because they aren't armed that America and Israel is able to abuse them like this.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Look, Iran isn't really under US control either. So what's the big deal about Iran wanting nuclear weapons? Economic price or international isolation is a small price to pay for continued existence. America can't offer anything to Iran that Iran actually wants; assurances of their survival. And if America can't offer that then Iranians would have to arm themselves.

Lose-lose is better than lose-win, if you are on the losing side one way or another. We can argue otherwise when Iran is actually getting something genuine out of not having nukes. But this is currently the correct decision they are making. You can't seriously think Iran is better off doing what America wants with nothing in return.

The big deal about Iran getting nuke is that it unsettles the most volatile region on this planet with plenty of oil at stake. The not-as-big deal is that Iran is violating the NPT that it signed up to, using it as a front to pursue nukes.

Is Iran the only country on this planet sanctioned by the US and within striking distance of US military? Cuba is right next to Florida and has been hostile to US for decades. Venezuela is trumpheting anti-Americanism at every chance in US' backyard. US could conquer either country in a week if needed. Fact is no one thought of invading Iran since Iraq-Iran war ended. Its survival certainly was not at risk when nuclear weapon program started.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

The big deal about Iran getting nuke is that it unsettles the most volatile region on this planet with plenty of oil at stake. The not-as-big deal is that Iran is violating the NPT that it signed up to, using it as a front to pursue nukes.

Is Iran the only country on this planet sanctioned by the US and within striking distance of US military? Cuba is right next to Florida and has been hostile to US for decades. Venezuela is trumpheting anti-Americanism at every chance in US' backyard. US could conquer either country in a week if needed. Fact is no one thought of invading Iran since Iraq-Iran war ended. Its survival certainly was not at risk when nuclear weapon program started.

Unsettles? You assume it was ever settled to begin with. And America was directly involved with the unsettling for decades. Please don't assume, once again, that somehow America is some benevolent world police, when it metaphorically dunked Iran's head in the toilet bowl.

"US could conquer either country in a week if needed?"
That sounds like America is a threat to world peace to me. Are you sure you know what you are suggesting? For that matter, do you know how hawkish you sound?

[Ithekro]

The nuclear powers have been attempting to prevent the spread of nuclear arms since the end of the 1960s and are not about to go back on their positions now.

I recall that there was a stink when India and Pakistan actually achieved nuclear arms. The main things preventing any actions against them was that niether was particularly hostile towards the West, as they were mostly focused on each other, and to some extent China...which was just fine as far as the West was concerned...and China tends to be for non-interference policies, so they said nothing that I am aware of on the matter. But there was a stink about it in the media...a great worry on if these weapons would get loose to hostile countries (like Iraq at that time), or be used for terrorism. However, as niether of those two countries ever signed the NPT...there was no legal diplomatic means of putting pressure on them.

Israel has always been coy about their nuclear weapons. It is assumed they actually had them before the NPT was created (and thus, if they did sign and could prove it, they would be classed as a nuclear armed state for legal purposes), but they like to keep their enemies guessing...and their friends guessing as well. Sometimes they worry people, but they did not sign the treaty, thus there is no legal or diplomatic angle to use against them.

North Korea caused a massive stink and panic when they went nuclear. They did legally back out of the NPT, but that they were going for weapons before that made things difficults politically. Even now the countries around it are trying to get them to disarm (Six nation talks?).

Iran is still part of the NPT and thus still under its rules. Until they use the proper clause to leave, they are in treaty violation and thus subject to retributions from other international powers because of it. That they want nuclear weapons is irrelevant in light of the treaty.

Also recall that the American people believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons when Iraq was invaded (possibly both times). That they turned out not to does not mean that the Americans will not invade a country that has nuclear weapons...especially if they only have a few. Mainly because the US military tends to strike fast and hard making it difficult to use a nuclear weapon without endangering that counties own citizens. None of these countries have the missile or aircraft technology to strike America directly at this time....not even North Korea has the technology, yet and they are likely the most advanced in terms of missile tech, even over India and perhaps Israel. Nuclear weapons are offensive weapons, or deterrent weapons...not defensive arms...unless you are Israel of course, as people believe they have nuclear land mines and have nuclear heavy cannon shells....but their enemies are close at hand and thus in range of said weapons and borders can be lightly irradiated without too much of a problem for their own peoples. It is not generally considered practical to drop an atomic bomb on a column of tanks when it is within a few miles of several of your own civilian centers.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Unsettles? You assume it was ever settled to begin with. And America was directly involved with the unsettling for decades. Please don't assume, once again, that somehow America is some benevolent world police, when it metaphorically dunked Iran's head in the toilet bowl.

Sometimes it's hard to communicate with apologists. Everything that Iran/NK/Syria/Cuba does can be justified because America did something worse 40 years ago. The logic is absurd on many levels and is of zero practical value in reality. Really now, we are not talking about kids not getting the fair share of cake, this is nuclear weapon.

I am not defending America's past record here. The current Iran nuclear weapon program is the only topic. What happened in the past is past. We are talking about the present and future. History explains why Iran wants a nuke. It does not justify it.

I have said enough of why Iran obtaining nuclear weapon is bad for everyone. But if you think "fairness" is a higher priority than the actual consequences and implications, well, what more can I say?

"US could conquer either country in a week if needed?"
That sounds like America is a threat to world peace to me. Are you sure you know what you are suggesting? For that matter, do you know how hawkish you sound?

If stating the obvious is a hawkish thing. *shrug*

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

Sometimes it's hard to communicate with apologists. Everything that Iran/NK/Syria/Cuba does can be justified because America did something worse 40 years ago. The logic is absurd on many levels and is of zero practical value in reality. Really now, we are not talking about kids not getting the fair share of cake, this is nuclear weapon.

I am not defending America's past record here. The current Iran nuclear weapon program is the only topic. What happened in the past is past. We are talking about the present and future. History explains why Iran wants a nuke. It does not justify it.

I have said enough of why Iran obtaining nuclear weapon is bad for everyone. But if you think "fairness" is a higher priority than the actual consequences and implications, well, what more can I say?


If stating the obvious is a hawkish thing. *shrug*

How is the need for a nuclear deterrent not a justification on its own?

Seriously, if Mexico has nuclear weapons, would you still make the claim that America can conquer it in a week?

Iran wants to feel safe. Nuclear weapons is the only thing that can work to that end. Your "bad for everyone" argument holds the assumption that Iran has nothing to fear... which is preposterous and no one would believe you.

[Ithekro]

It is not a deterrent if they cannot effect their attacker...and they cannot...directly. If they are after the Americans. They cannot use nuclear arms as a deterrent against the Americans from Iran. They might be able to use deterrent against Israel, but Israel is one to attempt to prevent that from happening, as they don't entirely trust Iran to keep it as "just" a deterrent.

They could use it as a indirect deterrent by threatening Saudi Arabia or shipping in the Gulf...but those are not threats directly against the United States, who can still strike them without the possibility of getting struck in return.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It is not a deterrent if they cannot effect their attacker...and they cannot...directly. If they are after the Americans. They cannot use nuclear arms as a deterrent against the Americans from Iran. They might be able to use deterrent against Israel, but Israel is one to attempt to prevent that from happening, as they don't entirely trust Iran to keep it as "just" a deterrent.

They could use it as a indirect deterrent by threatening Saudi Arabia or shipping in the Gulf...but those are not threats directly against the United States, who can still strike them without the possibility of getting struck in return.

At the very least, America cannot use traditional arms against a nuclear power. To be able to take out an aircraft carrier or two is in itself a type of security. Anyway, you can't simultaneously claim Iran isn't able to threaten America, yet claiming America is threatened by a nuclear capable Iran. The two claims are mutually exclusive.

If nukes aren't that good as deterrents, then what's the fuss over it? Obviously it would be useful, or there wouldn't be American suggestions of turning the whole place into glass.

I personally trust Israel as far as I trust Iran. Namely, none at all. They are sovereign states who care only for their own citizens. Iran would give up nuclear ambitions if and when they get a good reason to. But I can't think of one.

[Ithekro]

There is a difference between being a threat and being a threat to America itself. Iran cannot presently, nor in the near future attack the United States in any of its states or territories. Therefore deterrance is not achieved.

Iran can be a threat to US interests in the region and change the local balance of power, perhaps also alter relations with with Russia and China due to the shift in the balance of power. Its conventional power military could generally be swept aside in a enlarged conflict if Iran threatened US interests, allies, or business partners in the region (and has been if one remembers what happened after the attack on USS Stark). With nuclear weapons, it becomes more difficult to swat an attack aside, though not impossible...the US has been working on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield and related systems since Reagan wanted "Star Wars" in the early 1980s. They have deployed systems for that in Turkey and Israel has a version of it. The threat is to Saudi Arabia and other closer interests including shipping. The carriers should actually be fine against such an attack, as their escorts are designed to intercept missiles and aircraft, and they are designed with anti-Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear protection in mind. Unless they use something really close to the fleet to cut reaction time...and that means whoever fired the weapon will likely also be killed by it.

Iran being nuclear armed means that any military threats have to be taken more seriously, as they can inflict more damage and can potentially make very lethal results just from a single impact rather than like the Iraqi SCUD missile attacks on Israel in 1991 that caused some damage...if Iran issued a nuclear vesion of said attack, Tel Aviv would have been destroyed if any defensive missiles missed their targets.

Thus the Americans would not see this as a deterrance issue...as the "home land" is not under direct threat such as it would be during the Cold War from the Soviet Union. Mutually Assured Destruction is deterrence....having a nuclear weapon and no military means of delivering it to your enemy....is not deterrence. Instead they see it as a threat to allies and trade. Trade that "can" be made up with something else, and allies that "can" be thrown under the rug. Thus not deterrence. It is annoyance. It annoys the Americans that Iran can shift the Balance of Power and could cause significant damage should it ever made good on any threats it made, or in retaliation against threats made by other powers. But...it is not deterrence, because the Americans can afford to retaliate without fear of being nuked into the stone age by Iran.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

Sometimes it's hard to communicate with apologists. Everything that Iran/NK/Syria/Cuba does can be justified because America did something worse 40 years ago. The logic is absurd on many levels and is of zero practical value in reality. Really now, we are not talking about kids not getting the fair share of cake, this is nuclear weapon.

I don't think that Vallen is being an apologist. What he is explaining is why these countries would feel the need to go nuclear. From our standpoint, where we view ourselves as the good guys who are only threatening to people with ill intent, it is assumed that Iran wants to go nuclear in order to bomb Israel and create all sorts of havoc. However, as Vallen pointed out, it is very likely for what they perceive as their own preservation. We've taken action against them in the not-so-distant past, they've seen us act against other nearby countries within the past decade, and we're threatening them now (sanctions, harsh words, no diplomatic ties).

To us, the win-win situation would be if Iran just complies with international regulations, gives up the pursuit of nuclear power, and is completely open with inspectors. To Iran, it must seem like lying down so that someone who stabbed you in the side previously can now put their boot on your neck. They saw that we went into Iraq, even though Saddam allowed inspectors to come in and no weapons could be found. They know that we forcefully changed the government. They know that we changed Iran's own government previously, and that we're hostile to their current government.

Thinking about it from Iran's side, the United States must seem like it was batshit insane in recent years. What do they have to gain from complying with our demands, particularly in light of the fate of Saddam Hussein? We're openly hostile, and we're no longer trustworthy.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

There is a difference between being a threat and being a threat to America itself. Iran cannot presently, nor in the near future attack the United States in any of its states or territories. Therefore deterrance is not achieved.

You don't need to threaten the mother land for something to be a deterrent. You stated the various ways in which Iran could use nuclear weapons to threaten US interests/allies and any US military action in the region. It may not qualify as "mutually assured destruction" (the ultimate in deterrence), but it's most certainly a deterrent!

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Yeah, Ledgem pretty much explained my points.

I understand perfectly why America wouldn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. But so far everything they have said and done are entirely unconvincing to Iranians.

Iran need a REASON to not go nuclear. That's all. A reason that doesn't involve threats from the US. All the explanations given so far is "Iran would be punished", which is all the more reason for them to speed up arming themselves.

I guess I am a pragmatist. I am not arguing that Iran is somehow the good guys here. I am merely stating the case that if you don't want Iran to have nukes, so far all attempts to change that had been under whelming. The more scientists you assassinate and the more viruses you deliver to their computers, the more urgent Iran would feel about getting the deed done.

Current methods used simply don't work. And increasing threats won't make it work either.

[Ithekro]

Of course it won't work. It isn't designed to work. The press and governements involved need an "enemy". Iran is as good a target as anyone else. The way things are going, Iran is walking into a trap. If they play nice, they lose respect. If they play difficult, they will be hounded and probably eventually be attacked directly "to protect the region".

Either way...Iran loses.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Of course it won't work. It isn't designed to work. The press and governements involved need an "enemy". Iran is as good a target as anyone else. The way things are going, Iran is walking into a trap. If they play nice, they lose respect. If they play difficult, they will be hounded and probably eventually be attacked directly "to protect the region".

Either way...Iran loses.

If that's the case, then it is a race against the clock for them to get that bomb finished. They can't do nothing, so all they could do is to ensure the threat of nuclear weapons used in anger would make the West back off.

It's not good odds. But what other choices do they have?

[Ithekro]

Problem is...them making a bomb won't make anyone back off. Why? Because it will be just one bomb. And a threat to use it in anger will spark a first strike from the likes of Israel.

It is a trap. A trap that Iran cannot get out if by making a bomb or threatening to use one. The only way out of the trap is to let it go. And even that doesn't entirely evade the trap. It just make the West's job more difficult to pin something on them as an excuse. Iran having a real nuclear weapon is a perfect excuse to blow them off the map. And unlike North Korea...they don't have China as immediate backup.

Think about this a moment. There are lots of countries that have made the US or their allies upset over the decades. Most of them do not have nuclear weapons. Most of them have not been invaded or attacked by the US or their allies. Those that have usually have crossed a line someplace that demanded action be taken. What that line is we don't always know in full detail. Very few were completely destroyed in this process and most operations involved a single matter, that once taken care of the Americans and allies left. A few have been classed as too costly and the Americans and allies left without completing their objective.

However at no time has the United States....nor anyone else, used an atomic device in hostile action since the end of the Second World War.

All nations that have constructed said devices, save the United States and prehaps the Soviet Union, have done so for deterrence against some enemies. The United States designs them specifically for use in war (to nuke Germany originally, and then Japan because it was there), as did I think the Soviets (also to nuke Germany, and then the United States). Only after they were used was it realized that using them was a bad idea, and deterrence started happening. But only if the weapon could reach its target. Parts of the US Military wanted to use nuclear weapons on North Korea (and China if I recall) in the 1950s and a few wanted to use them on North Vietnam in the 1960s, though I think that was mostly soldiers during Vietnam who wanted to nuke Hanoi and be done with it rather than generals or politicians. Outside of that, no one has considered using nuclear weapons for direct combat except as a last resort.

Now....Iran. If they get nuclear weapons, will probably have the same notion that you can't actually use these things in open war....but, if they threaten to use them, it can be used as an excuse to remove them. Even if the threat is taken seriously. If then they do use the weapon in open war after being attacked....well, someone miscalculated for one...and for another...they will be doomed for using the first nuke since 1945 in hostile action. And there is a sort of unwritten rule. The first one to use a nuke is going to get nuked...probably by everyone else that owns one. That was part of the MAD defense.

As for the GOP primaries making it more difficult. That is intentional as well. They want Obama to make the mistake before the election. It will help them get elected if Obama has to face off against Iran over real nukes when the GOP has been talking about it the whole time. If things don't come to a head before the election, then Obama will likely win. If something happens before the election, the GOP can point fingers and pull off a fast one to get elected. Especially if things go poorly early on, or a nuke is used. The GOP will use that to say they could have stopped this earlier and such things.

It is a trap....perhaps even a multiple tier trap for different people.

[DonQuigleone]

I don't know, every other country with nukes has managed to keep them and not be invaded. Don't forget that Iran is neighbours with Pakistan. It probably fancies it's chances. Weapons talk, and no weapon talks louder then a nuke.

America is not going to invade Iran if, in the process, they have to risk the destruction of Tel Aviv.

[Zetsubo]

IRAN saw the power oft he US military and the coalition during the first and second gulf wars.

They saw how "shock and awe" toppled IRAQ in mere months. A country they were at war with for YEARS !

They see the new planes, the carriers, the drones (especially the drones) and they wonder.... how do we protect ourselves from this destructive ability ?

Soon the USA may develop land based drones... total body armor for their troops.

They can't risk a direct conflict ... do they must make the prey taste bitter to the predator.

Some small insects may look pretty but taste bad ... so birds avoid them.

The same with IRAN.

They are making sure to poison any victory the US will have over them.

Defeating IRAN in a conflict will be a Pyrrhic victory... at least so IRAN hopes.

The long term consequence of invading a nuclear powered middle eastern nation is... mind blowing.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

As for the GOP primaries making it more difficult. That is intentional as well. They want Obama to make the mistake before the election. It will help them get elected if Obama has to face off against Iran over real nukes when the GOP has been talking about it the whole time. If things don't come to a head before the election, then Obama will likely win. If something happens before the election, the GOP can point fingers and pull off a fast one to get elected. Especially if things go poorly early on, or a nuke is used. The GOP will use that to say they could have stopped this earlier and such things.

It is a trap....perhaps even a multiple tier trap for different people.

If you're implying the GOP will start claiming Obama's soft on national security if this issue comes to a head, I can't see anybody in their right mind believing that at this point. All Obama or his staff have to do is utter the words "Bin Laden" on TV or whatever media, to shine light on the absurdity.

Of course, they could also utter the words, "Increased drone attacks," but I doubt that would be as popular with the majority of people

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

I can't see anybody in their right mind believing that at this point.

Must be nice not being able to see Fox News or its viewers.

[Demongod86]

The whole idea of "one nuke being deterrent" is ridiculous. The reason Iran can't get nukes isn't that it itself may launch them, but would give a warhead to a proxy terrorist group.

"Oh hey we tested one nuke successfully, so even if the yield is crummy, make ten of these, have them 'somehow' fall into the hands of some unsavory groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc... and huzzah, no more Israel, and nobody to go after."

Hence as I said, if I was the guy with the red button, if Iran tested a nuclear weapon, I'd vaporize the country off the face of the planet, then nuke it some more just to make sure that we don't have theocratic lunatics with nuclear weapons.

Theocracy+nuclear weapons is like water and electricity. They don't mix, and I'd expect my government to move heaven and earth to make sure that genie doesn't get out of the bottle. And if it means obliterating Iran with B-2s, so freaking be it. They produce a nuke, now they play with the big boys.