now, the Saudis could go to Pakistan for theirs, right? -- j

first of all, "Stupid is as Stupid does", and I don't think any one can make a case for rational thinking regarding the Iranian theocracy.

Second, throwing National Sovereignty aside for a "fixed or coherent" policy fits perfectly with the concept of One World Government or New World Order. The Iranians would argue that their view of a coherent foreign policy is much better for them than the US idea of coherent. I believe the policy will be set or approved by the UN, negating the need for US congress and ultimately constitutional government...all for the sake of a unified and coherent policy. I believe this will happen because our fearless leader has already floated many trial balloons to test the American people's willingness to surrender their sovereignty. a.) in going after Khadafy, Obama chose to confer with NATO, the UN, and other governments rather than his own congress. b.) during an oil shortage in his first term he acted on the advice of the International Energy Commission to release large quantities of oil from our strategic reserve. These decisions were not the business of foreign influences until our leader chose to allow this influence, or maybe preferred to respond to world influence. More recently, he writes in secret to the Ayatollahs to pave the way for his great "agreement" with Iran and openly leaks plans to seek approval from the UN, rather than seek advice and consent from the Senate.

I already know I am a knuckle dragging Neanderthal when compared with "Mr. Nuance", John Cary. A student of the dynamics of free markets, human nature, and the freedom offered by the US Constitution could never understand something as complex as US foreign policy. I'll stipulate all of that. However, I am a US citizen before I am a world citizen. I read my Constitution often and marvel at the simple language guaranteeing my freedom from government and sovereignty, both personal and as a Nation. I don't see a benefit gained from losing it.

It is true wars are fought differently these days. Wars once were fought to win, and to the victor went the spoils. Now wars are fought to feed the military/industrial complex, relieve local political pressures, topple unfriendly regimes, and most important, there can never be a clear winner; we must fight to a draw. That is a dreadful waste of blood and treasure, and nothing is really solved.

My bottom line is we should run our railroad and let the rest of the world run theirs. If that results in a conflict between Israel and Iran, they will solve it. Our involvement only leads to the next crisis of resentment in the area. The more energy independent we become, the less relevant the middle east problems are in out life. Truly, if the whole region becomes nuclear that's fine, until they come our way. Then, if they really want to go nuclear, maybe we would be justified in giving them more nuclear energy in a day than they can comprehend. Just an armed society is a polite society, the Saudi's having a nuke may do more for Iran's behavior than anything we have to offer.

and if they send us a few icbms, we'll probably
turn their cities to green glass. . next president. -- j

If Iran gets a nuke (which is what I think Barry O wants) and uses it on Israel they can kiss their crazy ex Persian rear quarter cheeks goodbye. Israel whipped the whole area in the seven days war. They would blow Iran back to the days of the crusades should they be so stupid as to attack them.

I thought I recognized his face.

Chris Plante calls Kerry "bolt-neck" -- j

Ron, I am amazed that Iran has not simply bought
nuclear warheads for their missiles from Russia or
N.Korea -- they could get them more simply than
going through all of the problems of making them
themselves! -- j

p.s. if we are in a close alliance situation with Israel,
who no doubt have nukes because of our graciousness,
the prevention of Iran's nukes is in our interest. .not from
51st State nor from 50+ year dominance, just from alliance.
and further, Iran's "death to America" has worse teeth if
their icbms are nuclear-tipped. . self-interest.

In the Middle East, and in Africa too, the colonial regimes drew stupid borders that have nothing to do with the way the local people are organized, or want to be. If some of those borders are gettting redrawn, it is (1) inevitable and (2) potentially good, depending on who is doing it. (I suspect that most of the new boundaries in Africa, though, are new colonial ones, the new colonial powers being China (whose leaders want to own the oil) and the Muslim Brotherhood (which is trying to "Islamize" large parts of Africa by wiping out Christianity, animism, and other faiths in places like Darfur, South Sudan, and Nigeria, just as ISIS is trying to do in the Middle East.)

As far as treating the region like it's the 51st and 52nd states -- here I disagree with you. I believe the biggest problem with our Middle East policy is that it isn't fixed or coherent, and as a result the lives and efforts of our troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are being allowed to completely go to waste.

I believe that before the US goes to war with anybody, anywhere in the world, we should have a well defined mission, and should complete it before we get out. Thus if some country, I'll call it A, launches a war of aggression against the US, we should not simply fight them to a standstill and go home. That accomplishes nothing. Rather, we should decide on the day we declare war that we're either going to annex A permanently and make it a state -- or at the very least we're going to occupy A for 50+ years, so we can teach their next two or three generations why it's wrong to wage wars of aggression (or commit genocide). We did this in Germany and Japan and it worked.

The only exception I can see is if we believe that the person or group who launched the war doesn't represent the beliefs of that country -- as when bin Laden orchestrated 9/11 and took refuge in Afghanistan, and then Pakistan. In that case, we send a task force in, capture or kill the bad guys, and go home. (Which is *not* the way it actually happened, because the way it actually happened includes the war in Afghanistan that is still going on. The moment we realized, or decided, that we're not going to annex Afghanistan permanently, nor occupy it and re-educate its population for 50+ years, we should have ordered everybody home from there immediately.)

I call this the all-or-nothing war policy. Because anything in between is an inexcusable waste of American lives.

Of course in today's Middle East I would certainly choose to do "nothing" against ISIS, rather than "all". Because we don't have any reason we need to be there.

Easy for Kerry... He's all a$$.

Tragically, under the leadership of John Boehner, the Congess would be the ones to retreat to the rubber room. For a crying jag. Or something.

LOL!!

A+

Bingo. Stupid is as stupid does.

Probably his brother Cameron. I don't know the history of him. I do know that the members of Kerry's four month tour on a swift boat all say that Kerry lied about his service. His port on the Mekong was just a mile or so from where I was. All I know about swift boats is that they would moon us every time they went tearing by.

yet we can't vote US in!!! -- j

yessir;; I just edited a new book with that theme,
Unsustainable, and it could be enlightening:::

http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-Tuck...

-- j

Yes they think themselves to be royality. The title is forbidden in the USA, but what's the difference. When they get to live just like it, and exclude themselves from the very same laws they force everyone else to live by. Sounds like that King George guy that caused a revolution.
If it looks like duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, craps on the groung, then it must be a darn duck. Ditto for politicians and royalty.
Duck = royalty
Ground = regular people
Darn duck = politician

Never mind.

Hello symitch,
Literal brother or brothers in arms? Not that it really matters much. His meaning was clear enough...
Respectfully,
O.A.

They are under your sink now, in the bottle labeled 'ammonia'...Go ahead - sniff. Blaahch!

Jan

Hell with the parties, they are both evil... get the most qualified Candidates and work like hell to get them elected.

Dear Iran, Tell us something we don't already know!
Hugs,
America

With a Republican Congress, Joe Biden might not be a bad president at all. Because in effect, they can put him in a rubber room and he won't even notice.

We can vote them out but we can only elect the hand picked candidate from the parties.

The medals he tossed through the fence were his brothers.