Obama’s policy was to hold a highly publicized meeting, call it a “negotiation,” order Iran to deliver all its enriched uranium on a silver platter, and then grant Iran some possible future consideration. Same strategy, slightly different context. Again the message was, “Surrender your rights first, and then we’ll see… ”

Obviously the US is not serious about negotiations, only the appearance of being reasonable.

If only we would read and learn from history.

War is very profitable for some and that is why, for all the campaign promises, we will be in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long long time, no matter which puppet is in the White House.

Anyway, I found it so ironic that PJB wrote this: “And the families of the sick, the old, the weak, the women and the children who die are unlikely to feel gratitude toward those who killed them.” I mean, the poor, weak and sick in the US are so marginalized by the healthcare debate, it’s disgusting. I guess we must sympathize with Iranian poor and sick but not American ones – they’re all just welfare lazies.

I do suspect that his calculation would be that throwing the nation into an elective conflict would not work again. It’s been done. My sense of the public mood is that war weariness has taken hold. People want to get out of places we are fighting, not enter new ones. Unless the Iranians are stupid enough to engage in a real provocation, I think Obama will hold off.

Obama’s base is already disappointed in him. A voluntary war would cause a fatal, irreparable l breach. The Lobby would give him tons of money but left-wing manpower would desert him en mass, perhaps causing a left inspired primary battle. Any Democrat President with FOX News cheerleading his war would be as vulnerable as it is possible to be.

If war comes, we paleo’s will have a golden opportunity to show the American public what true conservative values are. The media will be casting about for any anti-war voices they can find, and in a big war, they will have to give us air time no matter how much they detest us.

Anyway, I can believe that Obama could do this if backed into a corner for his own re-election, but he won’t do it to save Harry Reid. Pat’s analysis of why it may have the intended effect seems essentially right, but the rationale by Pipes is absurd. In the end I think this is another example of certain Republican talking points getting the best of Pat, but somewhat more credible than when he buys into the line about the coming repeat of ’94.

Not important, except that justice would seem to require noting that whereas Daniel seems nothing but a great loudmouth Richard is indeed a great historian.

(And having just made a whopper myself on an earlier thread I thought I’d take advantage of Pat’s mistake to ostentatiously say that anyone can make an innocent mistake….)

Until, there is a Draft, war will only remain a matter of politics rather, than a matter of conscience.